TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (4) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nced to imprisonment for life, each, under Section 302/149, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, under Section 307/149 and rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, under Section 323/149 of the Penal Code. Appellants Harish Chandra and Nathu were further convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, each. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus. The prosecution alleges that there was long standing enmity between the parties of the deceased and the appellants. Some time prior to the incident a flour mill was installed and a house constructed by P.W. 1, Pahelwan, in his plot of land. In fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hit and he fell down in front of the flour mill. The shot of Nathu hit P.W. 1 Pahelwan, Lal Ram and Shri Kishan, all of whom received injuries. Lekh Raj, P.W., then attacked the appellants with his lathi, as a result of which some injuries were caused to the appellants including Harish Chandra. Thereafter the appellants escaped. 3. Ram Swarup succumbed to bullet injuries while he was being removed to the police station. A first information report G was lodged by P.W. 1, and eventually the appellants were committed to the court of Sessions that convicted and sentenced as stated above. Their appeal was also dismissed by the High Court as earlier stated. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that large number of injuries had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants had the right of private defence, and therefore, they have committed no offence. The submission of the learned Counsel is not warranted by the findings of the High Court. The High Court agreeing with the trial Court has found that the prosecution case as alleged has been established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court as well as the trial Court has rejected the defence version of the case, in view of their inconsistent pleas before the Committing Court and the trial Court. Before the Committing Magistrate pleas of appellants, Harish Chandra and Soney Lal, were alibi. The defence of appellants, Ram Sewak and Nathu, was that the occurrence had not taken place on the land of P.W. 1, Pahelwan, as alleged by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout the gun. In view of the "inconsistent pleas" and "in view of the fact that no infirmity worth the name has been shown in the statement of eye witnesses of the occurrence", the High Court accepted the prosecution case as true and held "that the defence case is false". The High Court has also held that "appellants were the aggressors". It is therefore, not correct to suggest as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there were no findings on record to show as to how the quarrel started and that the appellants were the aggressors. 6. From the findings of learned courts below the facts that emerge are (1) that it was the appellants who were the aggressors; (2) that the occurrence took place on the land in front of t....