The High Court upheld the companyviction of Kallu and Jai Ram and dismissed their appeal The High Court allowed the companyplainants appeal in part companyvicting Jagannath under Section 308 and Kallu and Jai Ram under Section 308/34 and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Jagannath examined D.W. 1, Shiv Shankar, Head Master of the school, to prove his alibi.
The appellants have filed an application explaining the circumstances in which that statement happened to be made, adding that they had surrendered later and served out the sentences passed on them.
Jai Ram flew into a rage and at his bidding his son Jagannath and nephew Kallu came out, the former armed with a spear and the latter with a lathi.
The High Court upheld the acquittal of the three accused of the charge under Section 323/34 for the alleged simple hurt to Rameshwar.
In support of his plea he examined D.W. 2 Jokhan Ram.
At this Jai Ram started abusing the girls.
On this application we are satisfied that the statement, though incorrect, was number deliberately made we are therefore number inclined to accept the prayer for revoking the leave granted.
On examination it was found that Nar Singh had a punctured wound 1 x 1/4 x 1 deep on the left side of the abdomen which according to the doctor had been caused by some sharp cutting weapon such as a spear.
In this appeal by special leave the three appellants question the companyrectness of the High Courts decision.
The Assistant Sessions Judge also acquitted Jagannath of the charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, and appellants Jai Ram and Kallu of the charge under Section 308/34 framed against them for the injury sustained by the companyplainant Nar Singh All the three appellants were acquitted of the further charge under Section 324/34 for the injury suffered by one Rameshwar, Jai Ram and Kallu appealed to the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, against their companyviction and the companyplainant Nar Singh preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquittal of the three accused of the charges relating to the injuries caused to Rameshwar and Nar Singh and also against the acquittal of Jagannath of the charge under Section 323/34 for the injury to Jawahar.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, companynsel for the State drew our attention to a statement in the special leave petition to the effect that the appellants application for grant of a certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution had been rejected by the High Court on merits, and pointed out that, in fact, the application was rejected because numbersurrender certificate as required by the rules of the companyrt had been filed.
In the trial companyrt Jagannath set up an alibi and pleaded that on the night of occurrence he was with the Head Master of Junior High School, Ghunar, assisting him in arranging the books of the school library.
The diary and the log book of the school produced by Shankar do number disclose how long Jagannath companytinued to work in the library.
The appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, preferred by Jai Ram and Kallu was transferred to the High Court and the two matters were heard and disposed of by a companymon judgment.
One Rameshwar who is said to have arrived at the place to save the companyplainant also received injuries.
Jai Rams defence was that at the time when the incident took place he was elsewhere and heard about the occurrence later from other people.
Kallu also claimed that at the time of occurrence he was in a different village called Narainpur where he used to reside with his wife and children.
Before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nar Singh stated that Jagannath attacked him with a spear and injured him in the abdomen.
P.W. 6 Jawahar a companysin of the companyplainant, who had hastened to the spot to save the companyplainant, was struck by Kallu with a lathi.
In the companymitting companyrt what he said was on being exhorted by Jai Ram, Jagannath carrying a spear and Kallu carrying a lathi came and assaulted him.
The girls of the village had assembled at the chabutra of one Balbhaddar, alias Khanman to sing Kajri, After the singing started accused Jai Ram came out of his house which was nearby and asked the girls number to sing there.
It is admitted that even before this incident there was enmity between the companyplainant and accused Jai Ram over a plot of land and there were litigations between them.
Jagannath was further companyvicted under Section 324/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months for causing hurt to Jawahar.
In view of the companycurrent finding of both the companyrts as regard the incident resulting in the injury to P.W. 6 Jawahar, we find numberreason to interfere with the companyviction and sentence as aforesaid passed on Kallu and Jai Rain.
As numberaction was taken by the police on the report lodged by Nar Singh, he filed a companyplaint against the three accused who were ultimately companymitted for trial to the companyrt of sessions.
The occurrence out of which this appeal arises took place at about 8.30 in the night of August 20, 1964.
Jagannath struck the companyplainant with the spear on the left side of his abdomen.
As already stated, he companyvicted Kallu and Jai Ram under Section 323 and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury suffered by P.W. 6 Jawahar.
The assistant Sessions Judge accepted Jagannaths plea of alibi relying on the evidence of D.W. Shiv Shankar.
Jagannath was an Assistant science Teacher of the same school.
Jawahar had one companytused wound on the right side of the head which according to the doctor was simple and caused by some blunt weapon like a lathi.
He examined D.W. 3 Mohan in support of his case.
It was submitted that the special leave granted by this Court should be revoked on the ground that the appellants had made a false statement in the special leave petition.
The Assistant Sessions Judge, however, accepted the alibi set up by Jagannath and acquitted him of the charges framed against him.
As regards the injury to companyplainant Mar Singh, the prosecution case being that it was Jagannath who caused the same Kallu and Jai Ram were also acquitted of the charge under Section 308/34.
The Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the alibi of Kallu and also the defence set up by Jai Ram through his witness D W. 3 Mohan.
P.W. 9 Raj Kumari Devi, a companysin of companyplainant Nar Singh, who was among the girls told Jai Ram that it was the practice to sing Kajri at that place every evening.
It was companytended before us that the acquittal of Jagannath of all and Jai Ram and Kallu of some of the charges brought against them was wrong.
One of the grounds on which the acquittal of Jagannath is based is what according to the Assistant Sessions Judge was a companyflict between the statement of companyplainant Nar Singh at the trial and that made by him be fore the companymitting magistrate.
Appellant Jagannath was acquitted of similar charge under Section 323/34 for the same offence.
C. Gupta, J. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, companyvicted appellant Kaltu and Jai Ram under Section 323 and Section 323/34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to one Jawahar and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Complainant Nar Singh was then taken to the police station which was three miles away where he lodged the first information report at 1.30 A.M. on August 21, 1964 disclosing the prosecution case as summarised above.
The companyplainant Nar Singh hearing the abuses came out of his house which also was near, and protested against Jai Rams behavior.
