CF0000079034 ^^ IN 'l'HS HIGH GOURT OP JUDXC^CURE A'£ JABA1.PU& CR-SMIl^l* APPfiAJ^ H0» \^g ^ /2000 ^S&l^SS^S. s- 1. Nand Kumar @ Nan,du son ofoiv!sion Sench (r';-nn,; (In Jail ) ' Par<3eshiraEQ Yadav aged about 21 yrs <• 2« ^sant soaa of Pardeshiraca Yadav "a^d about 23 yrs»- 3» Harisharikar son of Pardeshiram Yaday aged about 20 yra» All residents of village CSsoghadify, polic®Station Kota, BLstfc. Bil^spur (M«p«) nj^ ResoQndent s- State of M^P< ,~i. CONVIC.C IQN u2Mer section 302 ^-^P^G, (Each appellant ) Under secfcion 325 I.P.C. (Each appellant ) Sent^xir^ ,^ ^ .^ ^ ander section 323 I.P.C. tAppellanfc No.l ) R.I, for li£e"and fine of Rs. 3000/- In default fine, R.I. fcr yl yrs. R.I. for l yrs , axx3 fine pf Rs» 500/- ic defa-ilt of fine ^ R»I, for 3 months. &. I. fors&x months (6 months R^I.) and fine of Rs. 5oo/- in default of fine R.I. for 1 month» (MI sentenc^ runs concurr^ntly) • ® 2» CR iMaiAZi APPEAI. U14DER SSCCION 374 (9.) .^DE_QF a^. I^llNAl. PROCE.DU&E. XI-HC-78 W13FT^ ia?<-TT^ 7B^^l^^^fl^tfl^ r<o^pl^ <rl N-t^< C^\^^: f7.^1sP- {-'f^^i^mm (3-fll^^M^cB ^•lcii^cjP^T) 3TI^TW1^NF; cTSTT^TT^T^HN^ ^ ^trr^m-Fpipi-'n^'^ j •rS^€}^\W ^^<nW ^f?cf 3TT^l| .&lvlsion Bcnch: | Hon'ble Mr. L.C. BhQdoo B Hon'bSe Mr. Dhsrendra Mishra,_J7 1.3.2007 j Mr*. Abhcy Tiwarij Advocate f^r Mr. Ashish Shuli;!a, Additioi| Bhatia, Pane! Lowyer forjthe State. Oral judgment di^tGted on £>4^ Per L.C. Bhadoo, J\ I orc|er Ses^lions This apped under? Section 3' the judgrnent of conviction and passed by the 4 Add|tiona! No.197/99 whereby tKe Addition^ accused/appeilants guilty for commi| of the I.P.C, for committing murdei^ 325 of IPC for causin9 grievous inji accused persons to undergo rigoroi 302 of IPC, to pay c fiDe of Rs.3,C further undergo rigoroi^ imprlsontTs under Section 325 of IRC, to pay a of fine to further undfergo R.I. f< Nondu alias NGndkumar Ihas a!so be^ for causing simpie injuries to GQT <=hl^Id41-1 WRT^ff^ tel^f ^Hi^K^ 'r^€ -^r^ ^tffj^v^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ the oppeilant^. I \a\ Pubiic Prosecutor wiljh Mr. MP.S. ^4 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is dinected <^dnst of sentence dated 13th June, 2000 Jud9e, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial d Sessions Judge often hoiding the i^sion of offence under Section 302/34 of Doshroth & Reeban; iinder Section i|ries to Bansilal, sentencey eoich of the |s imprisonment for life ynder Section ^OO/-, in defau!t of pc3Eyment of fine to s^nt for one yeor cnd RJ. for one year fine of Rs.SOOA, in defai|!t of poyment |r three months respecti|/e!y. Accused fcn convicted underSectidn 323 of IPC Igoprasad & Ramfai and jsentenced to 1 P.T.O. --r(^ ^ XI-HC-78 3^T r^l^M^, ^TTl<-IJJ(o, f®lcni^^< ^11*1^1 Sb+lich ^ 200 3Tf^5T1q^gRl (^cit^<q^r) 3n^T^ff^TW cTSTT3TT^T$b^i<=h ^FcTTW^cT^rT^T -2-' o|f duri|ig undergo R.I. for 6 months, to pay of flne to further undergo R.I, for Harishonkar hwe been acquitted I.P.C. A!l the sentences hove beed directed that detention period agdnst the sentences imposed upon The cose of prosecutlon, necj on 2.3.1993 on the occoslon of &Qshrath Yodav, Reeban Yadavl Nandkumar Dhruv, Choindrahas Dub^ house of Reshamla! (P«l)after of ©anpat, occused Nondkumar storted tdl<ing, in the meantime| Bonshi Yadav, Doshrath & Reebart Dhirve shouted, therefore/ Bonsiio!, Dashrath &Reebon went 1|< sittin9 there, however, wlthin a sh At that time, accused Nandkumar/ name of mother <& sister holdin9 DasrQth <& Reeban with lathis & crot of the house, as^aulted there also[ became unconscious ond thereafNr episode, Da^hpQth <& Reeban sust <^i^fcrt41^ ^H<nT^te^<^di< ^3T^TT3TT^T ceie^rating fine of Rs,500/-, in default of poyment one month. However, accused Basant & the charg^ under Section 323 of the directed to run concurrentiy. It is oiso investigation and trial shail be set-off |the accused persons. lessQry for disposai of this appeGl is that 1-iol? festival in the Viiiage ©hon9adih, Banshita! Yadav/ Bohorik SatnQmi, ^y and ReshamiQ (PW-1) were 9oin9 to the Holi. On the way, near the house ^adw & Khiiavyanrom and others were accused Nandkumar started GS5au!tin9 with the lathi, on which Nand Kumar Nondkumar ran away. Thereafter, t|o the house Reshamial 0:>Wnl), they were )rt span of time Banshila! ieft the house. ^asont & Harishankar CQme abusing in the ^this in their hands ond stQrted attockin9 .vbar, they drogged them in the courtyard GS a resuit of which Dashrath & Reeban \ the Qccused persons ran oway. In the sined muitiple injuries ai! over the body. accilsed Idthis ^r P.T.O. i XI-HC-78 ^ocT ^I^Krl^, ^TTl^^Ko, Rl<r11^^< (^ <4l+1^11 sb*11<sh ^ 200 3<l^|\l5(ch (<ic<it4<s<^T) ^T^ST^Tf^ra cTSTT3TR?T5h^l<=t) ^RTTarPC^T^n^T -> ResHasnld The incident was witnessed by Family member^ of Dashrath & R^ Bilaspur Hospital. Within an hour S^ reoched on the ^pot to whom Reshatniat ba^ed on that First Information ff Investi9Qting Officer took up the i^vesl also found that accused persons at^ BanshiiQl. They were taken to th^ succumbed to the injuries/ whereas/ Bilaspur HospitGt, therefore, the In^| th@ Pcnchas prepored the inquest E^ on the body of Reeban. Their bo^ Bilaspur for postmortem exctmin^tion conducted postmortem on the body body of Dasrath and on dissectioi^ Dcsratti were fractured, right hand opined that death of Dcisrath v^ postmortem report ExP-21. He al^ the body of Reeban Yadav/ he noti^ the body of Reeban Qnd on dissect was fractured, radius c& uina bones thot cause of death of Reebcsn wa^ homicidal in nature. He prepared ^ <=hi^t^i4iTi ^i^<viT'^tel:^'<Ri^<.i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T (P-l), his wife Bitawan Bai (PW-4). eban ccime and they took them to the ib Inspector Shri N.N. KQdiyam (PW-18) (PW-1) 9ave Dehati Noiishi (Ex.P-1), ieport Ex.P-35 WGS re9istered and the ivestigation; During investigatlon it was acked Sangaprasad & RGmfai apQt'*t from ^ hospital, while on the wcy Dashrath Reeban succumbed to the injuries in the festigating Officer after giving notice to ^.P-32 on the body of Dasrath & Ex.P-33 les were sent to the District Hospita!, i, where Dr. R.K. Supta (PW-11) 3f DashrQth, he noticed 8 injuries on the he noticed that 4th, 5th <& 6th rib of bones were afso found fractured and he fos homicidai m nature. He prepored o conducted postmortem exQmination on ;ed grievous injuries on various parts of on it was noticed that left frontal bone ^ere a!so found fractured and he opined multiple injuries & coma and death was ^ostmortem report Ex.P-22. Injuries of P.T.O. [ XI-HC-78 3^T >:5TRTT^:PT, ^Tn^jll(o, [^€ni<1^< ^I^MI a»+iich ^ 200 311^1 M^ch ('?^35r^ar) 3T^T^)T^ich cT§TT3TT^T5h^l<=h ^<rrw^f?1cf3n^T -1. Banshiiai were examined by &r. 6.P. on the body of Banshiia! and the S. Chatterji (^-21}, who took X-raj foreQrrn and 4th metacarpal bone of report Ex.P-44. &r. N.K. Samdari^ ©angaprasad,he noticed simpie injut^ B. Chondani (PW-9) examined the simple injuries. He prepared the re^ In pursuance of the memor| Nondkumar, a bamboo stick and on^ pursuance of memorandum (ExP-10) ^hirt <& pant were taken Jnto pos.^ custody Harishankcir gave memora^ under Ex.P-15 one Tendu c!ub was t| pant and shirt were also token int accused BasGnt gave memorondum Ex.P-lS bQmboo ciub was taken intd under ExP-12 one bbod stdned lung After compjetion of investig^ accu^ed persons in the Court of Ch turn committed the case to the Sesj AdditionQi Ssssions Judge has rece prosecution in order to establish <^i^I<n41-i ^ii^^T^te^if^i^K ^3l1^T3TI^T Naidu (PW-10), he noticed t^p injuries mofter was referred to the Radioiogist Dr. [ and found that 9th rib, ulna bone of ^i9ht h<2nd t^ere fractured. H©gave his ^a (PW-22) examined the injuries of jies and prepared the report Ex.P-51. Dr. njuries of Ramfal and he noticed two jort Ex.P-18. tandum (ExP"7) given by the accused crowbar were taken into possession in gjven by Nandkumar. Bbod stained ful! ession under ExP-11. Whiie in poiice dum Ex.P-14 and in pursuonce of that ^ken into possession. Bbod stdned fui! |o possession. Whi!e in police custody, pxPM9 and in pursuance of that under possession. At the instance of BasGnt <& gomchho were taken into possession. |tion/ charge sheet wos flled ogainst the ef Judicia! AAagistrate, Biiospur, who in ^ions Judge, Bilaspur from where the 4 Ived th©case on transfer for tria!. The t^e char9©s090!nst the accused persons P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^ST -qi^icn^, ^Tfl^^i^, fci<ni^^< ^ +11*1^11 5b+l|ch ^R: 200 3<l^l\<5tch (l^3^?^) CT^TWf^TT^ cT§TT3TTG!?T5hHi<=b ^cTTW^IN'^TT^T -s- iftlhich examined 24 witnesses. StQtemertts under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in agoinst them in the prosecution and have been fcijsely impiicQted in beoten up. After hearing learned couns^I of the record, ieorned Additional ^ accused/appeIlQnts, as aforemention^ Harishdnkar from the charge under ^ We have heord Mr. Abhay and AAr. Ashish Shuk!a, Addl. Pubiic Lawyer for the Stote. LeQrned counse! for the homicidal death of Dasrath & Reebdtn. of Reshamb! (RW-l)/ who has catet persons i.©. Nandkumar, Basant ^ Dasrath & Reeban with iathis corroborated the above evidence ofl (PW-11), who conducted the has also stated that he conductect persons were homicida! in nature| e^tobiished that death of DasrQth At dnd po^tmojrtem chl^ld41-1 ^II^I^T^te^iRl^K ^3Tf^'R'3TT^T of accused persons ^ere recorded they denied the mater'iQl appearing evi^ence and stoted that they are innocent the crime, on the contrary, they were for the re^pective parties and perusa! |essions Judge convicted and sentenced ^d, however, Qcquitted accused Basant & fection 323 of the IPC. Ti^ari, coansei for tfie Qccused/appeilcints prosecutor with Mr. MP.S. 8hatia, Ponel accused/appe!!ants has not disputed L Moreover, from the ocular evidence ^oricalEy stated that aiE three occused Hari^hankar hod assaulted deceased crowbcir, PW-4 Bitawan Bai also |Resham!al (PW-1) os a!so Dr. R.K. @upta on the body of Dasrath & Reeban postrriortem ond death of these two Therefore/ in view of above, it is fteeban was homicida! in nature. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ? 3^T ^l^Krt^, ^Tn^JI(o, [^(rll^y +11*1^1 sb*11<si» ^200 ^l^l\|5|cb (1:!^3^^') w^T^rf^TW cTS[T3TT^T9h^l[cb ^ ^<fT^K^rf?cT;3T1^r Learned cbunse! for the accu^ injuries sustained by &angQprasad injuries are aiso established by the examined the injuries of Banshilal a^ who has stated that he took X-roy ray report, ulna bone of forearm and were fractured. His report is Ex.P" stated that NandkumQr had ossault4^ (PW-9), who examined the injuries o^ injuries and his report is Ex.P-18. stated that NQndkumar had asscu!^ were exomined by &r. N.K. ©angQprosadsustcsined two injuries s Therefore, the grievous inju^ injuries sustained by Ramfal & ©anga^ As far GS the invotvement injuries to Bansila! is concerned, Re^ that after ceiebrating Ho!i when th was following them. Nandkumar wa^ Nandkumar started quarreling. when he was going to cal! peon came corrying lathi in their hands, Sudhara Bai (PW-3) and attacked <=hl^?d41^ ^II^^T^te^if^^K ^3Ti^T3TT^T SQmd|ariya |ed/appeIiQnts has also not disputed the Bansital & Ramfol. Moreover, their svidence of Dr. ©.P.Noidu ^W-IO), who also the Radiobgist &r. 5. Chatterjee, |f the injuries of BansilQ} and cs per X- 4th metacarpai of right hand of Bansiiai -f4. Simiiarly, RamfQ! ^WB-14) has a!so l-4d him with the iathi. Dr. B.R. Chandoni Ramfal, hcxs stated that he npticed two imilarly, ©ongaprasadpW-23) has aiso t^d him ^ith the lathi and his injuries (PW-22), who has stated that mple in nature. His report is ExP-51. j^ies sustdned by Banshild! and simple xbrasad ore also established. o^f accused persons in causing 9rievous ^hamfa! (PW"1) has cate9orical!y stated i^y were going towards his house, Bansi coming from the front side, Bansilat & \, Banshi came to his house and !, NQndkumar, Basant <& Harishankar |they met Banshilal near the house of Bahshiial. PW-2 Banshiial has stated that P.T.O. Thelreafter, Harpr|ssad XI-HC-78 ^oET ^11'Mld^, ^Tfl^^Ko, f^<ni<My< <41^<^1 a^Tlch ^ 200 ^11^14^1* (t^^^) 3TT^T^Tf^TW cT§TT3:TT^T9h^lch ^cTTW^fN'^T^T --7 when he was going to cail the peon, b^ Sudhara Bd, accused Nandkumar/ in their hands, they Qttacked him as ieft towords the house of Reshamlall (PW-3) and o^ked her to inform his PW-3 and she has categoricQlly stQ( attacking Banshilal with lathi. In witnesses the defence ha^ not beeri discredits the ©videnceof thess twd by Banshifai have oiready been estG^ 10) QS a!so radio!o9ist (PW-21). persons under Section 325 of IPC which does not require any interfere^ infirmity or illegatity in the judgment As far as th©simple injurie| concerned, Ramfa! ha3 been.examinec that the accused NQndkumar had injuries of Ramfa! has been proved| these injuries. ©an9aprasadhas beet^ that accused Nandkumar had attack< he ieft towards the house of Sudh< were examined by the doctor (PW-2; chi^Td41^ ^i^<-iT^tel^'<^i^i< ^3Tl^T3T1^T the time he reached neor the house of B^sant <& Harishankar come carrying lathl resuit of which he fel! down and they He entered the house of Sudhara Bci son. Sudhara Bai has been exomined QS I'ed that she saw the accused persons Ithe cross-examinQtion of these two oble to elicit any circumstonce which witnesses. ©rievousinjuries sustained tished by the evidence of doctor (PW- Therefore, the conviction of accused based on legai <& clinching evidence, ^ce by this Court and we do not find any lof the tria! court to that extent. ^ CQUsed to RamfQl & SangciprGssad is as PW-14. He has cate9oricaily stoted a^sauited him with the lathi and siniple by the doctor (PW-9)/ who examined examined QS PW-23 and he has stated ^d him with the lathi on his right hond, |ra Bd. The injuries sustained by him |5 and his report is ExP-51. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:^r^ii^i^^, ^Tfl<-iji(o, Rtcni<-i^< ^ll^l^l S^*TTcb ^200 3TT^Tq^^ (^cit^q^r) 3TT^T^T^i<=h cT§TT3TT^T$h^l<t) ^<n'^T^f?cT3Tl^T ^ €vi<ience w^y Therefore, in view of the Ramfd & ©angaprc^adas olso the i^ accused Nandkumar was the ^angQprcisad csnd therefore, he of IPC by the tria! court ond to thQ|t the impugned judgment of the triai As far os invoivement of QCCUJ of Dasrath & Reeban is concernedj incident, has stoted that on the fatel going towards his hou^e, on the Banshiia!. Thereafter, hesent Ban^hl Banshiia! ^as going to call the peonj persons ottacked Banshi!ai. carr^^O iathis m their hands, they seen by his wife Bitawan Bai oiso persons are assaulting Dashrcith anc thereafter ^he closed the door. At house, the accused persons dashed started Qttacking Reebon with lathi. there dso gove beating to him me| house, ^hich was taken by Nand Dasrath <& ReebQn with that almost on a!E parts of the body, bl^ of above injured witnesses nameiy rhedical evidence, it is established that aut^or of injuries caused to Ramfai & has b^en rightiy convicted under Section 323 extent we do not find any illegdity in Qourt. Thereatfter crowfctar <=b i^ Tcn.41-i H\^^\\ ^ te^ <(^i<-^i < ^3:ri^:T3TT^T ted/appeitants in committing the murder Reshamld (PW-1), who witnessed the :ul day after celebrating Holi they were NGndkumar met and storted beating |!a! to call the peon Harprasad wd when Inear the house of Sudharcs Bai accused \ they come rushing to his house tttccked Dasrath ^ith lathis, which ^ros She informed him that the Gccused she asked him to go in the room and 1-hat time, Reeban wcs dso sitting in his pen the door of his house, entered and TTiey dragged him to the courtyard and 1ciless!y. One crowbcr WQS lying in his ^umar and dccused persons ottacked \ They assouited Dasrath & Reeban ^od stcsrted oozin9 out of the injuries, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T ^ti^K-i^, ^Tfl<yji$, f^^i^y ^l^dl sb^lcb ^ 200 311^1 <4^<t»(l^3^sr) ^n^T^Tf^TW cTSTT3TT^T$b^|cb ^<TT^K^f?cr3TT^T NandUumar both of them became unconscious ai| Bitawon Bci (PWa-4), wife of Resham) Reeban and her husband come to tolking whiie sitting in the hous| Nandkumar <& Harishankar came rul closed the door. Accused Thereafter/ they dashed open th^ occus^d persons started Qssauiting in the courtyard and there they resuit of which he fe!! down, bbod Dasrath and Reeban. Thereofter, thj Leorned counsel for the accul evidence of Bitowan Bd ^W-4) i5 that she ciosed the door, theref< witness the assouits made by the a| substance in this argument of for the reason that a!I the three ac| Bitowan Bai whiie entering their husband Reshamia! to 90 inside the and the door WQS dashed opened when the accused persons doshed house, there WQS eveiy occasion to g^ive <=bNfd41-i ^i^^iT^:tel:^'<r^^i< ^)'3:rf^T3T[^T id thereofter accused persons ran owoy. |a! (PW-1) has also stated that Doshrath, |ier house in the (ifternoon, they were ^. In the meantime, accused Basant, i^hing carrying lathi in their hands, she assoulted Dashroth with iathi. door of her house and a!! the three ^eeban with the lathi, they dragged him mercilessiy beating to Reeban, as a ^as startec! oozing out of the injuries of \^ accused persons ron away. sed/appellQnts orgued that as far as the ^oncerned, she has cate9oricaliy stated |?re, there wcxs no occasion for her to i^cused persons. But we do not find any counsel for the occused/QppellGnts, :^used persons were seen by ReshamiQl & |ouse, on which Bitawan Bai asked her bom and thereQfter she closed the door ^y the accused/appeltants. Therefore, ^pened the door and entered inside the litQwan 8d to witness the incident. iearhed P.T.O. { XI-HC-78 ^ocT ^l^lcrt^, ^TH^4l<o, (st<rtl^^< *iWW\ Sb+lich ^ 200 311^1 ^iach ('i?^^) ^n^T^rf^ri^ cT^T3TT^T$b^i<=b ^s^7' ^<fT^K^f?<T3:n^T (o. PW-5 Parmeshwar Yadav, so| fatefu! doy he was watching televi^ Narendro came and informed hlm |i of Dasrath/ has stated that on the |ion at his residence, at that time on@ about the quarre!, on ^hich he went ^as drenched with bbod and he sa^ accused persons were assauiting Re| crowbar ond others were holding iot^ The evidence of these witnej no contradiction in their evidencl <t)i^I^i4l4^i^^iT^:tel:^t<Ri^<.i< ^ 311^3^1 towards the schoo! and sow that h|s father was lying ih the courtyard of Reshamtal, there were injuries on tl^e body of his fother, hls father's body that in the house of Re^hamia! ai! the ^ban. Accused Nandkumar wos hoiding ^ses is reiiabie, consistent and there is ^ moreover, the evidence of these witnesses has been corroborGted b|y the medica! evidence. In fact, this crlme was hoppened in the house of PW"1 Reshamla! & PW-4 Bitawan Bai/ their presence in their house was bijt-naturd. It has not come in the cross- exaniination that these two witne^ses were hoving Qny o.nimosity against these accused persons so as to impli^ PW-11 Dr. R.K. Gupta/ who cjonducted the postmortem examination, has cotegoricoily stated that ther^e were eight injuries on the body of Dasrath and so many injuries on postmortem reports ond the evide^ evidence of PW4 ReshGmlaI, PW-4 instonce of occused persons and ;ate them in Q fQlse case. the body of Reeban, therefore/ the ice of &r. R.K, Supta corToborates the Bitawan 8ai & PW-5 Parmeshwar Yadav. AAoreover, the lathi <& crowbor, wea^on^ of offence/were recovered at the the doctor examined these lathis & crowbar, has stated that the inju|ries found on the body of DQsroth & P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^^^TPTI^R, ^Tn^JI(o, [^^11^^< +11+1^1 Sh+lich ^ 200 311^1 ^5|cb (^cii^q^T) 3:n^T^)T^i<+) cT§TT3TT^T$h^|ch ^<TTW^1?cT^n^T I/- <^i^f^i41-i +4i^<nT^'*teI:^'<[^<-<-i< ^^Tf^T3TT^T Reeban could be coused by these ^eapons except Injuries No.1/2 <& 7 of ReebGn and Injury No.l, 5/ 6 &7 of t|)asrath. Therefore, in view of the d^ove ocuiar cnd niedical evid@nce/ the invoivement of accused persons in^ causing injuries over the person of deceased Dashrath &Reebcsn i5 estQ|Iished beyond reGSonabIe doubt. Learned counse! for the Qc^cused/GppeliQnts ar9ued that accused Nandkumar also sustained injuries 4^d in his right of private defence, he assouited and on!y bthis were use^ therefore, the offence ogainst the accused person-s does not travel bey4nd Section 3Q4-II of IPC. In the first. instance, the na|ture of injury sustained by Nandkumar has not been estabiished by adc|ucin9 injury report into evidence or exomining the doctor1 that what kin^ Tnere is nothing in the evidence fhat injury was caused by DasrQth or Reeban. In order to exercise t^e right of private defence accused Nandkumar wos required to est^blish that there was a reasonable Qpprehension of danger to his body f^r causing grievous injury or death. Sections 102 & 105 of IPC d^at with commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of !: Gttempt, or threat, to commit the have been committed, but not unti! other words, the right lasts so long dcsnger to the body continues. of injury wcss sustoined by Nandkumor. ody as wet! as property. It comrriences as soon as the reasonQbIe apprehen^ion of danger to the body arises for an ^ffence, aithough the offence may not there is reasonable apprehension. In as the rea^onable apprehension of the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^^^Trar^R, ^TH^Ji(o,^<ni^^< ® <fm^n ai^T^i ^[ 200 ^i^^^) 3TT^T^Tf^fW cT§TT3TT^T$b^lch ^^f ^TTW^f^T^TT^T -a' evicgence w^re Where the right of private a reasonabSe ond probobie version by the accused was necessory for forestatling the further recisonabl| Qccused. The burden of establishl accused and the burden stands di| probQbiiities in favour of that plea this co.se, it is evident from the (PW-4) that the accused persons of Reshamlal, attacked Dasrath & WGS no right of private defence OVQ the intention of accused persons Qccused persons went to the merciiess beoting to Dc^rath & house of ReshGmlQJ was picked up wecspon of offence ond it is evider^t that injuries caused to DashrQth w^r his right hand was fractured, ribs of Dasrath were fractured. beating, his radium uina bone was fj were oiso fractured. Therefore, th|e given by the Qccused persons to accused persons Qttocked the hou^e Reeftan dece^sed cbi'(Mf<n41ri ^i^<^T^ffe1c^t<[^^i< ^3T1^R'3TT^T c|efence is pleaded, the defence must be s4tisfying the court that the harm cciused either wording off the attack or for l^ apprehen^ion from the side of the ng the piea of self-defence i3 on the ^charged by showing preponderance of lon the basis of materia! on record. In of Reshamiai (PW-1) <& Bitawan Bai aggressors, they went to the house l^eeban in their house, therefore, there labie to the accused persons. As for as concerned, in the first instance the of Reshamla! and there they gave se^an. Even crowbar which wos iying in the by NQndkumar, that was also used as from the postmortem report Ex.P-11 w^re eight in numbers as a resuit of which bone was fractured, 4th, 5th & 6th Si^nilarly/ Reeban was aiso given merciless 'actured, parieta! bone and frontai bone le manner in which merciless beating was yashrQth & Reeban estabiishes that the persons with the intention to couse P.T.O. hum<l>rous ^a XI-HC-78 3^T ^|q|<n<q, ^Tfl^^Ko, ^^11<1^< *1l+1<<11 «i*1icr» ^200 3^1^1 ^|5ich (l:I^3^^) 3:n^T^)TRRf^ cT§TT3TT^T$hHlch ,/ Roshan/- ^<TT^T^rfN;3T1^T -(S. their death. Dasrath died on the| hospital and within a short span of Therefore, the accused persons hw| of offence under Secticn 302/34 oflthe For the foregoing reasons, w^ the impugned Judgment of the trial 4 same is liGble to be dismissed and it i|s Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ,L— <^i^f<n<41ri ^i^c"iT^fte1l:^'<f^^i< ^3l1^R'3TT^T way when he WQS bein9 taken to the time Reeban aiso died in the hospita!. s rightly been convicted for commission IPC. do not find any iliegdSy or infirmify in :ourt. The appeai being devoid of merit, ^ hereby dismissed. ^: Sd/- Dhirendra M:ishra Judge