He also admitted that this was the cause of the ill feeling between him and the two accused Rajdhari and Jamuna.
The Trial Court had discarded the defence version as it found that the marks of trampling of the crop were present in field No.
It also observed that the sale deed relied upon by the defence was too old to op.
Minie, P. W. 14, and Dukhharans niece Km.
The other 13 eye witnesses, namely, Phagu Bhagat, P. W. I., Tappi Bhagat, P. W. 3, Ramjit Shah, P. W. 5 Ram Chandra Sharma, P. W. 8, Km.
Dr. Mehta examined as Court witness No.
Lachminia, P.W. 11, had a swelling of the right arm with a simple fracture and a lacerated wound.
Ram Rati, P. W. 9, Smt.
Radheyshyam Gupta, P. W. 23, went to the spot or in the statements of more than three out of sixteen alleged eye witnesses.
The High Court observed that, in view of the arguments, advanced, it would reduce the sentences of each of the accused persons, other than Jamuna appellant, by half.
39, in village Rani Sariswam.
Sujhani, P. W. 10, the mother of Dukhharan, P. W. 22, Smt.
No separate sentence was passed against Rajdhar, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary and Ramnath under Section 148 or against Jamuna, Muni Chamar, Ramayan, Ramanandan, Kishundeo Ahir, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir for companyviction under Section 147 I.P.C. The sentences so passed were directed to run companycurrently.
The first of these was grievous and the other simple.
Gulzaria, P. W. 12, Nagina Koeri, P. W. 13, Smt.
He also stated I found plot No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st January 1970 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Vekani, P. W. 17, Smt.
It had, however, companyvicted Jamuna Chaudhary separately under Section 302 I. P. C. ,and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
only Dukhharan, among all the alleged eye witnesses identified the accused individually at the trial.
And, the grievance which was set up was with regard to some Shikmi land with which the members of the alleged mob from several villages were number shown to have had any companycern.
Appellants Ramanandan and Sheopujan Chamar were also companyvicted under Section 325 and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment.
Ram Rati, P.W. 9, had an incised wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 caused by a sharp edged weapon.
Two Ecchymoses, simple injuries with a blunt weapon were found on Smt.
The remaining 12 appellants, namely, Rajdhari, Muni Chamar, Ramayan, Ramanandan Chaudhary, Kishundeo Ahir, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir and Ramnath, were companyvicted under Sections 326/149 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each.
made by ploughing up portions of field No.
30, by some irregular marks.
The first was by a piercing weapon like a Bhala and the second, which was serious, was with a lathi.
it is number shown what possible interest these other individuals, who are said to be the members of a mob, companyld companyceivably have had in the dispute between Dukhharan and some of the accused persons so as to companylie and attack the unoffending Dukhharan and members of his family without any apparent reason.
The Trial Court had acquitted 18 out of 31 accused persons on the ground that numberovertact had been proved against them.
Phekan had one Ecchymoses, a simple injury with a hard weapon Sitaram W. 20, had a lacerated wound 4 x 1/2 on the head, two punctured wounds 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/2 one on the left elbow and another on the numbere, a swelling on the left forearm with companypound fracture, a lacerated wound and two red Ecchymoses.
A Marpit took place after Ramanandan had fallen down.
Dukhharan had stated that.
30 so as to create evidence, of some incident there.
97 of 1970.
1 proved the following injuries on Ramanadan Chaudhary which he examined on 15 7 65 at 11 a.m. One penetrating wound 1/2 ?
In his evidence Dukhharan stated that he ran away to a distance of 2 to 3 bighas to the south but returned to the scene of occurrence when the accused had dispersed and then he found a number of other persons lying injured.
Injury No.
He admitted that Raghubir Chaudhary and the accused Rajdhari and Jamuna had a sale deed executed in respect of the above mentioned Shikmi land and that they had asked him to give up possession of the Shikmi land to which he did number agree.
2 ,of 1967.
The statement of Ramanandan Chaudhary under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code setting out the defence version was Ramanandan and some others had purchased some Shikmi land from Nathuni Dube and had grown Makai on it.
Ram Nagina had a lacerated wound, 3 red Ecchymoses on the back, and two on the buttocks, a punctured wound on the lower jaw and another on the right of the thumb, two of these injuries were caused by a sharp weapon, and the rest by a blunt weapon.
Gulzaria, P. W. 12, were weeding plot No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Trial Courts finding that the cause of this incident was a dispute over Shikmi land nearby was based on admissions of a number of prosecution witnesses Phagu Bhagat, P.W. 1 Ramjit Singh, W. 5, Sheodhari Bhagat, P.W. 7 Birjhan Bhagat, P.W. 15 Sitaram Bhagat, P.W. 20 Dukhharan Koeri, P.W. 22.
Hence, they too were injured.
Sonjaria wife of Sita Ram had a swelling and two Ecchymoses.
Hirachia.
Injuries, proved by Dr. B.N. Dwivedy, P.W. 4, who examined the injured on 15 7 65 between 4 45 p.m. and 7 p.m. were Two scratches and 4 Ecchymoses, all simple injuries, with some blunt weapon were sustained by Dukhharan.
This injury had been held, by the High Court also, to be outside the scope of the companymon object.
Birjhan Bhagat, P.W. 15, had a punctured wound, a simple injury caused by a penetrating weapon.
The appellants, Rajdhari, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary and Ramnath were also companyvicted under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.
All the in juries mentioned above were shown to have been caused within 12 hours of their examination so that they companyld be caused on the morning of 15 7 65.
Two were caused by some sharp weapon and the rest by a blunt weapon.
Sujhani, P. W. IO, Smt.
Two Ecchymoses, simple injuries, with a blunt weapon were found on Fegn Bhagat.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant Jamuna companyld only be companyvicted under Section 304 I. P. C. IInd part for the injury on Laldharis head.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. Thirty one accused persons were sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Chapra on charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 326, 302/34, 302/149, Indian Penal Code.
The suggestion was that the party of Dukhharan itself had attacked a number of persons who were injured.
So far as jamuna appellant was companycerned, it dealt with the case only to point out that the head injury was a stray one.
1, caused by sharp pointing weapon such as Bhala and other by sharp cutting such as pharas ? .
Appellants Muni, Ramayan, Kishundeo Ahir, Sheopujan Chamar, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir, were companyvicted under Section 323 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Nuruddin Ahmad.
Furthermore, he admitted that proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had taken place between the parties over this land.
in District Saran, at 2.15 p. m. on 15 7 1965.
Sonjharia wife of Ram Gobind Bhagat, had a swelling on the right arm, with a simple fracture, a swelling of the left middle finger with a fracture and an Ecchymosis.
When the appellants took their appeal to the High Court neither the evidence of the witnesses number the cases of the individual accused except Jamuna were discussed at all.
rate as a motive for an incident on field No.
Its view was that as seven women had been injured, it companyld number be believed that Dukhharan and Sitaram and others had gone to the field of Ramanandan to cause injuries.
Two of these injuries were grievous and the rest simple.
S. N. Singh and Gyan Sudha Misra, for the appellant.
The prosecution case may be stated as follows On 15 7 1965 at about 8 a. m. Dukhharan Koeri, P. W. 22, his brother Sitaram Bhagat, P.W. 20, his sister in law Smt.
They were his brother Sitaram, P. W. 20, Tapi Bhagat, P. W. 3, Nagina Koeri, P. W. 13, Smt.
Tapi Bhagat, P.W. 3, had a scratch, a red Ecchymosis and a swelling on right arm, a companypound fracture and a lacerated wound, all caused by a blunt weapon.
These three eye witnesses were Sheodhari Bhagat, P. W. 7, whose field is to the west of the field in which Dukhharan is said to have been weeding, Birjhan Bhagat, P. W. 15, whose field is to the numberth of Dukhharans field, and Sitaram Bhagat, P. W. 20, the brother of Dukhharan who was said to be actually weeding with Dukhharan in the same field.
Its finding definitely was that the occurrence took place in plot No.
Thus, this Shikmi land was the cause of dispute between Dukhharan, Rajdhari, and Jamuna, accused, in which the other accused persons companyld number have any real interest.
The accused did number produce any witness in defence.
Marchhia, P. W. 19, and Dukhharan, P. W. 22, make numbermention whatsoever of any incident involving the companying of Laldhari to the scene of occurrence or any attack upon him.
The appellant Jamuna Chaudhary was also charged separately under section 302 Indian Penal Code.
C. Prasad, for the respondent.
It bad also held that an attempt had been made to show that the occurrence had really taken place in plot No.
A crowd of 80 to 85 persons from various villages, armed with Lathis, Bhalas, and Pharsas suddenly appeared and started attacking the unoffending Dukhharan and his relations in field No.
he and his father used to pay rent of Shikmi land to Tapesar Dubey and Dhanraj Dubey.
Fekani, P. W. 17, and Laldhari who was lying unconscious and who never regained companysciousness.
When he was ploughing one of the purchased plots numbered 30, at about 8 a.m. on 15 7 65, Dukhharan, Sitaram, Birjan Nagina, Inder Sain, Tapi Bhagat came there and protested against the ploughing.
Two of these were grievous injuries.
He also stated that he had filed an application before the Block Development Officer, Nathwa, for granting him a receipt in respect of the rent of the Shikmi land, but his request was turned down.
One of these injuries was grievous.
Ramanandan also filed a sale deed dated 30 8 1920 showing that he had purchased plots No.
Names of 25 persons, including the appellants, are mentioned in the First information Report lodged at Police Station Mirgan.
Lachminia Devi, P. W. II, Smt.
A very extraordinary feature of the case is that although, according to the prosecution case, only one incident took place at about 8 a. m. in the morning in the field No.
That plot was admitted to be in the possession of Dukhharan.
Minia, P. W. 14, Smt.
Ram Rati, P. W. 9, daughter of Sitaram, were also present there.
As Ramanandan did number pay any attention to their protests, Dukhharan and Sitaram attacked him with Pharasas so that he fell down and became unconscious.
24, 30, and 31.
Matia, wife of Ram Nagina Bhagat, had three red Ecchymoses which were simple injuries.
