The failure of prosecution to explain injuries on the accused leads to a reasonable doubt about their culpability, justifying acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vivekanand Rai, learned counsel for the surviving appellant no.3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.05.1984 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 272 of 1983 whereby the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment, six months further imprisonment. They were further convicted and sentenced under Section 452 IPC and were directed to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 323/34 lPC and they were directed to undergo six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the appellants no.1 and 2 have died and their appeal was abated on 23.10.2019. The appellant no.4 has also died and his appeal was also abated vide order 28.08.2025. Thus the instant appeal is surviving only on behalf of appellant no.3, who is represented by Sri Vivekanand Rai, Advocate .

4. As per the prosecution story, the brief facts are that the deceased Jeevan was the son of Hukami. Hukami had four sons namely, Nathhi, Lohare, Jeevan and Kishan. All the four brothers were residing together in a joint family. Nathhi died issueless leaving behind his widow Jhanjhaniya. Jhanjhaniya has also died prior to the occurrence of this case. After the death of Nathhi and Jhanjhaniya, all the three brothers namely Lohare, Jeevan and Kishan used to cultivate the land held by Nathhi and Jhanjhaniya. In the instant case, Lohare is the main accused and the other three appellants namely Bhojpal, Bhima and Ram Hari are the sons of Lohare. Injured P.W. 1 and Girraj are the sons of deceased Jeevan.

5. As per the prosecution case, the accused Bhojpal used to look after the cultivation and lands of the family. However, his intentions became bad and he used the ornaments and money belonging to the deceased Jeevan and his sons. The informant Sonpal asked the accused Bhojpal to partition the plot of land held by Jhanjhiniya, then the accused Bhojpal has disclosed that the said plots were in his name and refused to partition the said plots. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the accused Bhojpal had manipulated and got his name mutated over the plots held by Jhanjhiniya. Thereafter, a Panchayat was called. As per the the decision of Panchayat, two bighas of land belonging to Jhanjhiniya came in the share of informant Sonpal and one bigha to his uncle Kishan Singh. The informant Sonpal started cultivating the land of two bighas belonging to Jhanjhiniya w.e.f. July, 1981.

6. Kishan The uncle of informant has also filed a revenue case against Bhojpal. Deceased Jeevan and his son Sonpal used to look after the said case lodged by Kishan. The said case was pending before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chhata. It is the case of the Prosecution that due to the said case filed by Kishan, there was enmity between the accused- appellants herein with the informant and the other family members. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is stated that on 16.03.1983 at about 8:00 A.M., the informant P.W.1, Sonpal, his brother Girraj and his father Jeevan were present at their house at village-Rehada. They were making preparation for reaping