Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants in this case has not challenged the fact that an assault did take place upon Kirta Ram Lumba Ram and Chema Ram but he submits that in this case, the prosecution has come out 'with a false plea that Naina Ram had put his cattle in Dhaniwala filed of Kirta Ram and Lumba Ram and that cattle of Naina Ram had grazed the standing crops in the said filed. He submits that the true fact was that Lumba Ram and Kirta Ram had forcibly stolen the cattle of Naina Ram from the possession of his son Shanwarlal DW 1 and were illegally taking them to cattle pound and when the accused persons learnt of this theft, they went to rescue their cattle upon which a fight ensued and hence accused persons were entitled to assault Kirta Ram, Lumba Ram and Chena Ram in exercise of right of private defence to their property. His submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances learned trial court was not right in finding that the accused persons had formed any unlawful assembly from the beginning. His submission is that the appellants might have exceeded their right of defence of property in causing injury No. 12 to Lumba Ram after he bad fallen to the ground, hence they could have been found guilty at best of offences under Sections 148 and 304, Part-II, IPC but the learned trial court went wrong in convicting the appellant Naina Ram of offence under Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. He went wrong in convicting appellants Moola Ram. and Naina Ram for offence under Section 323 IPC. He further went wrong in convicting Smt. Roopi under Section 325 IPC. He further went wrong in convicting Smt. Mani of offence Under Section 324 IPC. He, likewise, completely went wrong in convicting Gumana Ram of an offence Under Section 307 IPC and of convicting Padma Ram of an offence under Section 302 IPC Likewise, the learned trial court fall in error in convicting the appellants other than Smt. Roopi of offence under Section 324 read with 149 IPC; appellants other than Smt. Mani of offence under sec 325 read with 149 IPC; appellants other than Gumana Ram for an offence Under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and appellants other than Padma Ram, Roopi, Mani & Gumna Ram of offence Under Section 302 reads with 149 IPC.

13. We may here examine if the learned trial Judge was right in holding Padma Ram guilty of an offence Under Section 302 IPC Kirta Ram in his examination-in-chief has deposed that Padma Ram gave a kassi blow on the Hank (Pawanda) of the deceased. To the same effect is the statement of Chena Ram The testimony of these witnesses is not corroborated or supported in any way be medical evidence an record because no injury by a kassi has been found on the flank of the deceased. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge went completely wrong in convicting accused Padma Ram for an offence Under Section 302 IPC.