He found him guilty Under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
The companyvicted persons filed an appeal to the High Court.
The two sentences were to run companycurrently.
Dhonkal was companyvicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Sohanlal and Adram and was sentenced to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment.
The companyviction and sentence on other companynts was maintained.
It was alleged by the prosecution that Dhanpat attacked Sohanlal with the Gupti Gopal hit him on his head with Barchha and Dhonkal hit Adram with Kassia.
2 had been caused by a sharp edged weapon.
Now on the side of the companyplainants Sohanlal deceased had sustained four injuries which were all incised wounds.
He was also Convicted Under Section 324, IPG for causing injuries to Adram awarded a sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment on that companynt.
The learned Sessions Judge found that Section 149 companyld number be applied to the facts as found by him and each accused person would be liable for his individual action.
It was denied that the accused persons went to the house of Adram.
1 and Ex.
Five persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, on charges under Sections 147, 449, 307 and 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code.
The High Court did number agree with this finding companypletely In its opinion a part of the incident took place at the house of Gopal.
He started hurling abuses and was asked to leave.
According to the case of the prosecution Adram, Sohanlal and Kashi ram were sitting at the house of Adram when Dhanpat appellant came there in a state of into Kication.
6 produced by the prosecution at the trial, and may have assaulted the companyplainant party.
Kheevni had one companytused wound on the right side of the frontal region and three companytusions.
Dhanpat thereupon picked up a Kassia and moved it in all directions and dealt blows to the members of the companyplainant party.
The male accused, in order to wreak vengeance, may have taken up the weapons such as Ex.
Chawali had two companytusions and five incised wounds on the left pariso occipital region companynecting one with the other.
The Sessions Judge had rejected the defence case that any incident took place at the house of Gopal.
He was accompanied by Gopal who had a Barehha and Dhonkel who was armed with a Kassia.
Dhonkal had six companytusions, one companytused wound on the right parietal region and haematoma on the left side of his back.
The defence of the accused persons was that the companyplainant party had companye to the house of Gopal armed with weapons and they had started inflicting injuries on all the five accused persons.
Out of all the accused persons Gopal had a companytusion on the medial surface of dorsum of left head, a curved incised wound on the right side of the parietal region, a companytusion on the left shoulder region and an abrasion.
The third injury had been caused by a sharp edged weapon.
Dhanpat went towards his house and returned after a short time armed with a Gupti.
This attack was attributed to some old enmity between the assailants and Adram and Sohanlal.
After companysidering the evidence this is what the High Court observed It cannot, therefore, be ruled out that when Dhanpat abused Adram and Sohanlal, these persons accompanied by some other persons went to the house of Dhanpat and there beating was administered to the ladies of the family of Gopal and also the male accused.
This was the prosecution case as embodied in the first information report which was lodged by Madu Ram P.W. 2 at police station Bhadra on 12th September 1965 at 11 p.m. Bhadra is at a distance of 19 miles from village Kunji where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.
The first injury was grievous and the others were simple in nature, Injury No.
It appears that the male accused, namely, Gopal, Dhonkal and Dhanpat did number leave the matter by driving away Adram and Sohanlal and others from their house but pursued them and went to the house of Adram which was at a distance of about fifty steps from the house of Gopal as deposed by Sheodan Singh P.W. 8 and at that place they caused fatal injuries to Sohan Lal and may have caused further injuries to Adram and Madu ram.
Indeed it were these injuries which ultimately caused his death.
The first one was an incised wound on the upper part of the right parietal region and the second one on the lower part of that region.
Dhanpat was companyvicted under the same provisions for causing injuries to Sohanlal and was awarded one years rigorous imprisonment.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
The injuries were simple, Dhanpat had four companytusions and one abrasion injuries being simple.
Maduram had three companytusions and two abrasions the injuries being simple in nature.
Kheevni were armed with lathis and accompanied the other assailants.
It is apparent that the case of the accused persons was that whatever injuries had been inflicted on the deceased or on others had been Inflicted in exercise of the right of defence of person when the companyplainant party came to Gopals house and started attacking them.
It may be mentioned that Gopal and Dhonkal are brothers and Dhanpat is the son of Gopal.
It was held that the grievous injuries on the head of Sohanlal were caused by Gopal.
The wives of Gopal and Dhonkal Mst.
Chawali and Mst.
Adram had sustained seven injuries four of which were incised wounds, two companytusions and one abrasion, all the injuries being simple.
