Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

02. In the present case, there are two deceased namely Maniram and Panchram whereas PW-1 Upendra, PW-2 Mayaram, PW-4 Puneetram, PW-5 Kalicharan, PW-8 Janakram, PW-11 Bheemlal, PW- 15 Ganeshram, PW-16 Bhagatram, PW-17 Devnath, PW-18 Shatruhan and PW-20 Chovaram are injured persons.

03. As per prosecution case, there are two groups in the village, one headed by the accused party and the another by the complainant party. On 17.8.2010 at around 1 pm FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged by injured Kalicharan (PW-5) alleging in it that he is an agriculturist of Village- Balodi, on that day at about 12 noon he along with 40-50 persons had gone to graze their cattle in the barren land near Khapri road and during that period, appellant Mangaldas and certain other accused persons along with 30-40 persons reached there, asked them as to why they are letting their cattle graze the crop and in turn when it was told by the complainant party that it is the barren land which is being grazed by cattle, the accused persons along with 30-40 other persons after abusing them started assaulting them by means of club, axe, Chatwar (a weapon like spear). It is said that they caused injury to Maniram and Panchram and other witnesses. Based on this report, offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506-II and 307 of IPC was registered against 12 named accused and 30-40 other persons. Maniram succumbed to his injuries on way to hospital whereas Panchram died on 18.8.2010 in hospital at Raipur. Merg intimation in respect of Maniram is Ex.P/10 whereas intimation in respect of death of Panchram is Ex.P/6. On 18.8.2010 inquests on the dead bodies of Maniram and Panchram were conducted vide Ex.P/2 and P/7. On the same day postmortem on the body of deceased Maniram was conducted vide Ex.P/105 by PW-23 Dr. FR Nirala who noticed that V shaped lacerated wound on upper part of the head, swelling around left eye region. In his opinion the cause of death was shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Likewise, postmortem on the body of deceased Pancharam was also conducted on 18.8.2010 vide Ex.P/8 by PW-19 Dr. SK Bagh who noticed surgical stitched wound around left fronto-parieto occipital region, fracture of left parietal temporal bone and right parietal temporal bone, excessive blood in clotted form present in lateral ventricle, excessive extra dural hemorrhage and sub-dural hemorrhage present in both temporal and occipital region but base of brain (occipital) was prominent and injury on the back side. In his opinion, the cause of his death was cardio- respiratory failure as a result of head injuries and their complications and death was homicidal in nature. According to both the doctors, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Both the deceased persons were initially medically examined by PW-23 Dr. FR Nirala and on examination of injured Maniram he noticed injuries as above (Ex.P/63) and on examination of Pancharam he noticed lacerated wound on the left side of head of size 2.5 x 1.3 x 1.3 cm and he was also complaining of pain in waist region (Ex.P/64).

(ii) that complainant party along with 40-50 persons reached the field of the accused persons along with their cattle to damage their crop and tethered their cattle there. The appellants in exercise of right of private defence of their property if caused some injuries to the complainant party, they cannot be held guilty for any offence in view of provisions of Sections 97 to 103 of IPC.

(iii) while referring to the statements of number of prosecution witnesses, in particular of Patwari and investigating officer, it has been argued that it is the complainant party who first came to the field of the accused persons and while they were grazing their cattle there, a free fight ensued between the groups and during that process, the members of both the parties suffered injuries. A counter case was also registered against the complainant party, they were prosecuted vide ST No.100/2012, however, after trial they were acquitted by giving them benefit of exercise of right of self defence.

15. PW-24 Anup Nag, investigating officer, while supporting the prosecution case has stated that dispute between the two groups cropped up when the complainant party was grazing their cattle on the barren land and at the time, the accused party reached there and asked them as to why they are grazing the cattle on their land. He further submits that the villagers had approached Tehsildar and other officers for making complaint against the accused persons for encroaching upon the government land and for removal of the encroachment. He states that he called both the parties in police station and made them understand not to take law in their hands. He admits that a counter case was also registered against the complainant party and 20-22 persons were made accused in the same.

20. However, from the evidence it appears that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants to commit the crime and it has come in the evidence of number of prosecution witnesses that there was no previous animosity between the complainant party and the accused party. As per prosecution case itself, on the date of incident, the complainant party, comprising 40-50 persons, went to the field in question for grazing their cattle, which was allegedly in possession of the accused party. The appellants having come to know about the cattle of the complainant party grazing their field went there to drive them away and it is in this process that a free fight took place between both the groups in which members of both the parties suffered injuries, and Maniram and Panchram succumbed to their injuries. Thus, keeping in view the overall evidence in the factual background, the conduct of the complainant party, the manner in which the incident occurred, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by both the deceased persons as also the weapon used for assault, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be justifiable to hold the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, at the same time, there is no denying the fact that while inflicting injuries on the deceased persons, the appellants had the intention of causing such injuries as would result in their death but had no knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause their death. Being so, they can safely be held guilty under Section 304 Part-I read with 149 of IPC on two counts and further, sentence of RI for ten years on each count and payment of Rs.2000/- by each of the appellants as compensation under Section 357 of CrPC to family of the deceased persons, would serve the ends of justice.