But as they reached near the agricultural land of the appellants, they were attacked by Hema Ram with a spade.
This was followed by a fight between both sides.
The fracture sustained by the fourth accused Sharwan was on the frontal bone, the lacerated wound sustained by Hema Ram was also on the frontal bone while A 3 Achlu also had lacerated wound on the forehead as well as on the parietal region of his head.
Those were all companyvicted for various offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is his version While A 1, Hema Ram was doing agricultural operations in his field, the deceased and PW 6 trespassed upon his field armed with lathis and launched an attack on him.
Bhiya Ram who sustained a serious head injury, later succumbed to his injuries.
Among the companyvicted persons Hema Ram was arrayed as A 1 in the trial Court and he and other companyvicted persons jointly filed an appeal by special leave in this Court.
F.I.R. was lodged by PW 11, Ummeda Ram, one of the sons of the deceased at 3.00 p.m. on the same day.
In the meanwhile, PW 4, PW 5, PW 9 and PW 11 also reached the same place.
They appealed to the High Court but a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence and dismissed their appeals.
All of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the aforesaid principal companynt and to lesser terms of imprisonment for lesser offences.
Fifth appellant Narain has also lacerated wound on the head.
Both the cases were got investigated into by PW 17 who referred the case based on the F.I.R. lodged by the second appellant Gopa Ram, and charge sheeted the case based on the first F.I.R. In support of the prosecution version, PW 3 Mega Ram, PW 4 Kheraj son of the deceased , PW 5 Moola Ram, PW 6 Doongar Ram, PW 7 Sohan Lal, PW 8 Surja Ram, PW 9 Jaga Ram, PW 11 Ummeda Ram were examined as eye witnesses.
The first blow was dealt with on PW 6 Dungar Ram.
Nagaur.
The incident which gave rise to the prosecution case took place at about 10.00 a.m. on 6 7 1982.
Kamla is wife of Sharwan fourth appellant .
Seeing this his brother Bhiya Ram intervened to rescue his brother.
Then Hema Ram gave a blow on Bhiya Ram with the same spade.
Hearing the companymotion three sons of the deceased and one son of PW 6 reached the spot with lathis, but the appellants attacked them also.
It is pertinent to point out at this stage that on the side of the accused four persons sustained injuries including serious injuries like fracture and lacerated injuries on the head.
So PW 8 Surja Ram did number see the occurrence from the beginning, his testimony was also relied upon by the High Court on the premise that it would companyroborate the version of the prosecution story.
Fifth appellant Narain is the son of second appellant, Gopa Ram.
As pointed out above, the sixth appellant, Smt.
The High Court found his testimony reliable and the evidence of the remaining eye witnesses was found to be substantially supporting the prosecution version.
There are six companyvicted persons including a lady wife of one of the companyvicted persons by name Sharwan .
The prosecution version regarding the occurrence can be summarised thus Hema Ram the first appellant is the father of Sharwan fourth appellant and Gopa Ram Second appellant and Achlu Ram third appellant are his brothers.
On the side of the deceased, apart from the serious injuries sustained by the deceased, five more persons received injuries including serious injuries such as fracture and lacerated injuries on the head.
On 6 7 1982 Bhiya Ram, the deceased and his brother Dungar Ram PW 6 proceeded to the agricultural field situated beyond the agricultural land of the appellants.
Noticing it, some of the appellants also reached the field who were carrying water.
The deceased Bhiya Ram and his kith and kins were at loggerheads with the appellants on account of skirmishes which took place sometimes prior to the date of occurrence in this case.
They had an agricultural field at Raidhanu in Distt.
It is advantageous at this stage to indicate the defence version as companyld be numbericed from the evidence of DW 1 Joga Ram who claimed to be an eye witness.
Two hours thereafter, another F.I.R. was lodged with the same Police Station by second appellant, Gopa Ram who put forth a rival version of the incident.
In support of the defence version, a number of witnesses were examined as defence witnesses.
