A proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.
4 was incised wound on the middle of scalp muscle deep.
at about 7/8 A.M., Amar Singh PW 9 , was tethering his buffaloes in front of the house of the appellant Prem, which was protested by Prem, Hari Ram and Brij Lal.
The feelings between the two parties were further surcharged due to the companystruction of a wall.
Satya Devi D.W.1 is 13.
The appellant Prem, is alleged to have a given gandasi blows on the head of Biru Ram, which proved fatal.
Ram Avtar had one incised wound in the head simple in nature while Biru Ram had two injuries on his person according to P.W. 3 Dr. Kuldip Seth Accused Mela Ram had six injuries on his person while accused Hari Ram had three injuries on his person, according to PW.3 Dr. Kuldip Seth.
The number of injuries on the persons of the companyplainant party is more than the persons of Mela Ram and Hari Ram accused and Smt.
The nature and the number of injuries on the persons of the companyplainant party suggest that the accused were the aggressOrs.
Prem gave gandasi blows on the head of Biru Ram, who fell down.
Biru Ram and Ranjit Ram also assaulted the appellant Hari Ram and Mela Ram.
Ghhoti, Smt.
Phoola Devi and others reached the spot.
According to P.W. 3 Dr. Kuldip Seth, the companyplainant party had suffered 20 injuries on their persons out of which 7 injuries were grievous.
The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.1986.
So far the other injured persons on the side of the prosecution are companycerned, incised injuries and abrasions were found, details whereof have been mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Judge, The defence of the appellants is that although the accused persons and the prosecution party were very close relations, but because of the family dispute, they were bitter enemies of each other.
1 and 3 were blunt injuries on the left fore arm back and on right knee joint and injury No.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellants Mela Ram, Pala Ram and Ram Swarup also came there.
It appears that there was a dispute between Biru Ram deceased and his sons on the one side and accused Mela Ram and his sons on the other side, in companynection with a wall, which had been companystructed by the appellant Hari Ram in the house.
After the occurrence, Biru Rarn, was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Mustafabad, where he succumbed to the injuries ai about 8.50 A.M., the same day.
Satya D.W.I had four injuries on her person,out of which injury No.
The other accused persons assaulted prosecution witnesses aforesaid, including the.
P.W. 4 Ranjit had three injuries on his person out of which two were incised wounds.
At that time Biru Ram deceased was armed with a Ballam.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court have referred to the different injuries found on the person of the appellants and Smt.
The nature of the injuries on the persons of companyplainant party is more serious than that of Hari Ram, Mela Ram accused and D.W.1 Satya Devi.
The appellants picked up the weapons which were in the companyrtyard and used the same in their self defence, which caused injuries on the side of the prosecution.
The other prosecution witnesses were armed with gandasies and iron rods.
All the six accused persons had been put on trial for causing the death of Biru Ram and injuries on Ranjit Ram PW 4 , Dhrampal PW 5 , Ajmer Singh PW 10 , Joginder Singh PW 11 , Smt.
406 of 1990 has been filed on behalf of Ram Swamp, Pala Ram and Mela Ram whereas Criminal Appeal No.
ladies of the family.
Satya DW 1 .
Amar Singh gave an iron rod blow on his left arm.
The appellant Hari Ram had filed a suit and an order had been passed restraining the prosecution party from demolishing the wall aforesaid and from interfering with the possession of the companyrtyard.
Phoola Devi is the widow of Biru Ram deceased .
P.W. 10 Ajmer Singh had one grievous injury on his person, which was in the head towards right side, P.W. 11 Joginder had 4 injuries on his person which were simple in nature, Smt.
Only the remaining two persons, Ram Swarup and Pala Ram are number related to Mela Ram.
Ram Avtar, who was also injured in the occurrence, is the son of Ranjit Ram and as such grandson of Biru Ram deceased .
From the side of the prosecution, on hearing the raula, Ranjit PW 4 , Dhrampal PW 5 , Ajmer PW 10 , Joginder PW 11 and Biru Ram deceased along with Smt.
Phoola Devi and others.
It is an admitted position that Biru Ram deceased and the appellant Mela Ram were brothers.
Satya Devi DW 1 .
Satya Devi D.W.1.
P.C. was initiated.
Ajmer gave gandasi blow on the right arm of Hari Ram.
407 has been filed on behalf of Hari Ram, Brijlal and Prem.
The prosecution witnesses Ranjit Ram, Dharampal, Ajmer Singh and Joginder Singh are the sons of Biru Ram deceased .
Prem and Mela Ram were armed with geodesies , Hari Ram with an iron phowra, Brij Lal with Kulhari while Pala Rarn and Ram Swarup were armed with lathies.
But the prosecution party did number accede to his request and they companymenced the attack.
They wanted to demolish the wall, which was resisted by the appellant Hari Ram, who told the companyplaint party that if they had any grievance regarding the companystruction of the wall then they should approach the Civil Court.
So far the other five appellants are companycerned, there is numberallegation that they caused any injury on the person of Biru Ram deceased .
For purpose of recording a finding as to whether the prosecution party or the accused party was the aggressor, all the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and relevant circumstances have to be taken into companysideration.
Some of the prosecution witnesses gave a gandasi blow on the head of Smt.
P.W. 5 Dharampal had two injuries 6n his person which were incised wounds, P.W. 9 Amar Singh had four injuries on his person, out of which two injuries were grievous and the other two were simple.
At that time Biru Ram deceased along with Ranjit Ram, Joginder, Dharampai, Ajmer Singh, Amar Singh, Smt.
On the side of the accused persons, Prem Chand, Brijlal and Hari Ram are the sons of Mela Ram.
Pala gave lathi blows on the back of PW 4 and others.
In the suit the prosecution party was restrained from interfering with the possession of the companyrtyard and from demolishing the wall in question.
The Trial Court, however, has observed Now the question to be seen is as to which party was the aggressor.
Phoola Devi and Ram Avtar came to their companyrtyard.
On this there was exchange of hot words between them.
Chhoti had one incised wound in the head which was grievous in nature.
According to the appellants on 11.12.1986 at about 7/8 A.M. the appellants Hari Ram, Mela Ram and Satya Devi DW 1 were present in their house.
Criminal Appeal No.
P. Singh, J. Two appeals have been filed against the same judgment.
During the medical examination of Biru Ram, an incised wound about 3 1/ 2 sic x 3/4 bone deep and a punctured wound about 1 1/2x 1/2 muscle deep on the right occipital parietal region were found, which are alleged to have been caused by the appellant Prem with his gandasi.
Further according to him, Smt.
Phoola had two incised wounds simple in nature on her person while Smt.
2 was relating to pain in the middle or right back while injuries Nos.
Therefore, the number of injuries on the persons of Mela Ram, Hari Ram and Smt.
