Honble SHARMA, J.–This appeal by appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:

Appellant Ghasita:

For offence u/S. 307 IPC:

Five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

Appellants Handu and Juharu:

For offence under Section 307/149 IPC:

Each to undergo 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

All the three appellants:

For offence under Sec. 148 IPC:

Each to undergo 1 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one months imprisonment.

(2). At the very out set, it may be stated that appellant No. 2, namely, Handu has died during pendency of this appeal as is evident from the endorsement dated 22.7.2003 at the back of warrant, made by the Station House Officer. A certificate certifying the death of appellant Handu, issued by the Sarpanch has also been annexed. This fact has already come on record. Since appellant Handu has died and none of his legal representatives has filed any application to continue with the appeal, as required by the provisions of Section 394 Cr.P.C., the appeal of deceased Handu stands abetted.

(3). On 6.11.1981, PW. 4 Hatti lodged a report, Ex. P. 1 at Police Station, Kaman with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 5.11.1981 at about 5.30 PM. It was alleged that while Hasmal was sitting in his Nohra, accused Ghasita, Usman, Dal Singh, Husaina, Mannu, Isaq, Chhaju, Bhoop Singh, Amar Singh, Handu, Jahur, Sukka and Sakin came there duly armed with Guns, lathis, Kattas and farsas with an intention to kill Hasmal. All the accused encircled the house of Hasmal. On being asked as to why they have encircled his house, accused Ghasita and Handu replied that they will kill him and his family members. When Hasmal tried to escape from the scene, the accused encircled him and Ghasita fired at his left leg. When Mst. Sesudan and Mst. Sarbati, daughter and wife, respectively of Hasmal came to his rescue, accused Handu and Zuhru also opened fire at them with Katta, with an intention to kill them, which hit at the walls of Nohra and house. The complainant alleged that when he tried to run towards Nohra of Hasmal, then accused Dal Singh and Bhoop Singh opened gun fire at him. According to the report, accused Husaina, Mannu, Isaq, Amar Singh, Chhaju and Sukha were armed with farsas and lathis were shouting that they have encircled and would not permit any one to enter into the Nohra.

(4). On the above report, the police registered a case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 307 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency did not find any substance in the allegations contained in the report and accordingly submitted Final Report. However, the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 3.1.1983, disagreeing with the final report, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 307/34 IPC in respect of only 3 accused who are appellants before this Court and one of them has died during pendency of appeal.

(5). On the basis of evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147 and 148 IPC against all the accused appellants, under Section 307 IPC against Ghasita and under Sec. 307/149 against accused Juhuru. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

(6). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated herein above. Hence the present appeal aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document