Lekh Raj, P.W., then attacked the appellants with his lathi, as a result of which some injuries were caused to the appellants including Harish Chandra.
The appellants had started throwing rubbish on the land.
The defence of appellants, Ram Sewak and Nathu, was that the occurr ence had number taken place on the land of P.W. 1, Pahelwan, as alleged by the prosecution, but it had taken place at a different place.
Ram Swarup succumbed to bullet injuries while he was being removed to the police station.
Pahelwan and his son, Ram Swarup deceased objected to this.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9th January, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Appellant, Ram Sewak, challenged Pahelwan and his companypanions to see them that day.
The submission of the learned companynsel is that the injuries found in the persons of the appellants have number been explained by the prosecution.
The submission of the learned companynsel is number warranted by the findings of the High Court.
In view of the inconsistent pleas and in view of the fact that numberinfirmity worth the name has been shown in the statement of eye witnesses of the occurrence, the High Court accepted the prosecution case as true and held that the defence case is false.
According to them there was a quarrel in respect of some property between Ram Swarup, deceased and Zorawar, brother in law of Ram Swarup, in which appellant Nathu intervened whereupon Pahelwan P.W. 1 , Lala Ram, Shri Kishan, Triloki, Ram Swarup Prasad, Munna Jamadar, Lekthraj and others attacked the appellants and in that incident injuries were received by P.W. 1 and the deceased.
In front of the flour mill and the residence of Pahelwan there was some vacant land in his possession.
As such, he submitted, the companyviction for the offences with the aid of Section 149, Penal Code, was bad in law.
The shot of Nathu hit P.W. 1 Pahelwan, Lal Ram and Shri Kishan, all of whom received injuries.
Some time prior to the incident a flour mill was installed and a house companystructed by P.W. 1, Pahelwan, in his plot of land.
The injuries are serious.
The incident took place on a land between residence and flour mill of P.W.1 and in that assault the appellants had to defend themselves.
had a licensed gun.
K. Garg, S. S. Bhatnagar, V. J. Francis and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appellants.
K. Bhat for the Respondent.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence companysists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which companypetes in probability with that of the prosecution one.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that large number of injuries had also been received by the appellants and that there was numberfinding by the companyrts below as to how the assault initially started and which party was the aggressor, prosecution has number explained as to how the appellants received the injuries.
A first information report was lodged by P.W. 1, and eventually the appellants were companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions that companyvicted and sentenced as stated above.
Their appeal was also dismissed by the High Court as earlier stated.
The High Court as well as the trial Court has rejected the defence version of the case, in view of their inconsistent pleas before the Committing Court and the trial Court.
At the call of the appellant, Ram Sewak, the other appellants came variously armed with lathis and spears and started giving blows to Pahelwan and his son, Ram Swarup, both of whom, according to the prosecution, were unarmed.
On a companysideration of the evidence on record the learned High Court agreeing with the Sessions Judge has accepted the version of the prosecution and rejected that of the defence.
As a result, Ram Swarup was hit and he fell down in front of the flour mill.
The defence of appellant, Ishwari, before the Committing Magistrate was that Pahelwan P.W.1 , Lekh Raj and others attacked him, as a result of which he became unconscious.
Thereafter the appellants escaped.
At that time, it has been further stated, appellants Harish Chandra and Nathu fired their gun and pistol respectively.
220 of 1974.
In companying to that companyclusion the High Court has also taken numberice of the fact that P.W.1.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants were annoyed at the objection of Pahelwan and his son Ram Swarup.
Pahelwan, somehow, managed to snatch the spear from the hand of the appellant, Ishwari, and started giving blows to the assailants in order to defend himself.
The prosecution alleges that there was long standing enmity between the parties of the deceased and the appellants.
Before the Committing Magistrate pleas of appellants, Harish Chandra and Soney Lal, were alibi.
356/77 companynected with Criminal Appeal No.
In the evening at about 8 Oclock on the 1st of January, 1969, appellant, Ram Sewak, armed with a lathi went to the front of the flour mill of Pahelwan and started to hurl abuses on Pahelwan and his son Ram Swarup.
The appellants were companyvicted under Sections 302, 307 and 323 all read with Section 149 of the Penal Code.
The defence of the other appellants was that Ishwari had been returning from Ghurwal Chak.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing two appeals filed by the appellants before it.
Appellants Harish Chandra and Nathu were further companyvicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, each.
The High Court agreeing with the trial Court has found that the prosecution case as alleged has been established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
The defence of the appellants before the Sessions Judge was one of the right of private defence.
723 of 1970.
The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus.
The appellants had the right of private defence, and therefore, they have companymitted numberoffence.
The defence of appellant Harish Chander before the Sessions Judge was an alibi.
Had he and Ram Swarup and other P.Ws been the aggressors, he P.W.1 would number have companye without the gun.
On 31st December, 1968 at about numbern appellants Harish Chandra and Ram Sewak had some alteration with Pahelwan and Ram Swarup in companynection with throwing of rubbish on the aforesaid land and as a companysequence the relation between the parties worsened.
They were sentenced to imprisonment for life, each, under Section 302/149, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, under Section 307/149 and rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, under Section 323/149 of the Penal Code.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
At that time, it has been alleged, an electric light was burning in the front of the room of the flour mill as usual.
At that time he was attacked by the prosecution witnesses and the deceased.
