X l-i;SC..;12 !Hi?:?1 W ••5?i1p adST 'FW ^iisa ^B-^— TSEI ^iptRpi,'3^NTre, 1«i?ira5t . -^yo»/c£ - 3ffi?Tira%: , ^ W?ff a>Ui4i" '^Tl 360-— •s,^ sii^r ?%iTW: ^iitg C>ivisjon_BencjLL^- Hon'bte Mr. L.C. Bhadoo ond Hen'ble_Mi\ Ohit'endra Mishm, J31 23-2-2006 p^ellant Mr. Shaitendra Dubey, cQuns41 Mr. R K. .Tain, counsel for ap^ellar Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional P(iblic Lcnvyer for the State/respondent. Oraljud9ment dictated on D^is. Per'i-.C^BItadoo^J':- By this appeal under Sectio^ the accused/appellants have questi^ned of comiction and order of senterjce Aciditional Sessions Jud9e, R<sg<d[h, leornsdAdditional Sessions Judge for commission of offence under" the Indian Penal Code, sentenced aud rigorous impriSonment for one that both tlie sentences shall run Cose of the prosecution, iri intimotion (Ex.P-2) inPolice Sttttioi the effect that land dispute was goi Sukhram was sowing padcly in •(il'silcf'il^ Hm<sS 4 'fe^> <F"it$rt ^ sipffq an^i for* appeliant No.l ©weshRam. No.2 Budhncri'h. Prosecutoc with Mr. Akh[l Mishra'.Pwiel S^ctions edch 374 (2)0f the Codeof Criminai Procedure, legality Acorrectness of the jud9ment dated l'* AAcy. 1999; passed by the l" i, in Sessions Triol No.210/96, whereby |after holding the accused/appellan-t's guilly 302 ahd 325 pead with Section 34 of of them to undergo imprisonment for iife ^edr, respectively. It was further tlirected pcurrently. . Eirief, is that Mansai (PW-1) lodged me'rg psBagbohar on 14-6-1996 at 2230 hburs to ng on between him and Sukhrom, on that doy his field,- therefore, thinking that he .[^•^ia^- ~" cdncurrenl 4.^ ^^;g ^s SSsm •i':E.^'. ^. CF0000062033 ^ y\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABMPUR CRIMIN&L APPE&L BO.X'S" aT-OF 1999 APPELIANTS : 1. ACCUSED - :M TAT.LI <-' 2. RESPONDEHTt ^" - -. /" Gaaeeli aam, c/o Sdclirain ^' a<fed afeou-t 38/^earB, r/o ^Blriia de«p. Budhaath s/o jSiiilchram &ye& ateoat 23 ysar,s, . /f'/'o villaTC Birla dega. Poira Statlon Ba^ Batear Distt.^I(aRH(M'.tP.). VERSUS Sta-te of M.P. throufb S-tatloB House Officer ^ Poliee StatiGR Bag Bahar Distt.B&IG&'aitMP) . CONVICTION SENTEtCS ../"' u/8 382 & 325 read witb 3^ of I.?.C. .•1:1JI ^l.Si'l JJII il •vs 1!Em 1 Lifs Imprisoameiat wi-tfe 1 year of ri«ror.eus imprisonaeat eomitralatlve . Rt i:^i CRIMINAL APPEAIj'OHDER SSCTION 374(2) OF THE CRIMIN&I, PROCEBURS CGDE « a F XI-HC-22 3'I^CT^T (t:.-< sn^i sh^l^ ^t^a ^? ^RqRPI, 'S^WT?. ftflltiy WWfTgiWqi n^r 1traq? _.<s..;A.:.I^o^23 i%"-""-l""""-"-""T'^ fc should not plow his field/he went -tjo sfiw the fjeld and he^isked him not to sow paddyon which ©anesh, Buna, Ag^ini A Sukhram started attacking w'rth axe. Bho9atfam, Sobha AHeeralal came with Tangi on ri9ht scapular' reyoi) r'eporf, Station House OfficSt' ^o intervene. Sanesh Rom assaulted Heeralal las ar'esult ofwhich he died. Based on this IB.L, Kehri (PW-10) registered the First Informqtion Report (Ex.P-1) for c^mmission of offenc& under Sections 302 & 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and serit the injured persons namely, ^ansai, Sobhar-am & Bhcgatr'am to ^ivil Dispensary, Bogbahar, for examihation of the injuries sustoined by them. ^r. K.&. Paswan (PW-4)ex<mined them and prepared the injury reports Ex.P-3 Bha9atram, antf for certain injuries it was found that all the three recej fractur-es in respectof Mansai E^ wepe prepared. Notice Ex.P-20 Panchanama (Ex.P-21) of the body < Ex.P-9. While inpolicyciritodv, aci in respect of axe, the weapon of recovered under Ex.P-11. Accused mortem on the bodyof Heeralal an^ ^nf^pfN' iffE^ff "^ 'f^st i? arfSipT sn^r ofMansai, Ey.P-4 of Sobharam <& Ex.P-5 of X-Ray was advised. After receiving X-Roys, Ved fractured injuries.therefor'e, reportsof .P-6, Sobharam Ex.P-7 & Bhtgatrom Ex.P-8 toas given to the Panchas and ther'eafter, >f Heeralal was prepared. Blood stained soil and plain soil were taken into pos^ession from the place of bccurr'ence under :used ©aneshRam gave memor'andum Ex.P-10 offence and in pursuance of that, axe wos Budhnath gave memorandum Ex.P-12 and in pur-suahce ofttiat, bcmboo Lathi w^e recovered under Ex.P-13. Site ptan (Ex.P- 15) of the place of occufrence wa^ p?epar'ed by Patwari Raghunath ftam. The body of deceased Heeralal was se^rt for post-mortem examination to Primca^ Health Centre, Patha^aon under- E^.P-ldA, where &r. J. Minj <:onclucted post- prepored the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16). ; ['Tt^ ^fo^ 1;.. ' fl E XI-HC-22 3^1^ Ki-litfi 581^1:. *HW 'gfta • ^sg -AjlijKq. ^tjly'lo, 1^'iwy ^ TIPR'ff %-tn^i:&.;AA.k^O.£, -soe- Site plan (&.P-18) of t6e place of Clothes of the deceased were taken iriirito Af-ter completion of investigatl Judicial Magistrate, First ClasS Dhor^r Sections 302 <& 325 read with Sectioh ©anediRam, Buclhnflth^Sukhram & A^hnibai the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from wl'jere Raigarh, r-eceived the case on trcmsfe^for eslto The proseeution in order to examined 11 witnesses. On the otheri wepe recorded under Section 313 t .' prosecution evidence and stated thfftj examined one witness Sukul (&W-1J Exs.b-l toti-5 r'egarding cbarge sheel case against the complainant papt^ ftoznuncha r-6port (Ex.6-6} regardinc^ against the complainont porty wos also whereas acquitted aGCused persons Sections 302& 325 read with Section tBwiiri^i'i ^wrif'? 'fyA <r<ii«;i< '^3I^IH3n^[ • occurr'ence nvas prepa'ed by B.L. Kehri. possession under B<.P-l9. on, charge sheet was filed in the Court of imjaigQrh, for cpmmission of offence under 34 of the I.P.C. (gainst accused persons ihnibai, who in tum committed the case to learned 1 Additional Sessions Jud9e , trial. itish chorges a9ainst the accused persons hand, stotements of the accused persons ^f the Cr.P.C. in »«hichthey denied the they ar-e innocent, in their defence they I. buring cross-examination, documents and connected papers filed in the counter were tendered into evidence and the the report todged by the aecused party Itendered into evidence. After- hear'ing the orguments 4f Adctitional Public Prosecutor and counsel for theaccused persons, lea'ned Adc|itionalSessions Judge convicted aecused/ fr •• • 'l ' •" • .' • . '' . ' - • ' appellcmts Sanesh Rw <& Budhnath <|s mentioned in para 1 of this judgment, Sukhram &. A9hnibai of charges under 34 of the I.P.C. [^^fia^ Kll Cp.ft.t^^^ Q% ^- We hcve heard Mr. Shailendra C)ubey,leamed counsel for appeHant No.l. Sanedi Ram; Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for appellant No.2 Budhnath and Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned Additional Publie Prosecutor with Mr. Akhil Mishra, leorned Panel Lawyer on beholf of the State/resfWndent. The homicidol death of Heeralal is not in dispute. Even the ir(juries siBtained by 3obhar'(m, Mansaj & Bhogatram in the incident in question are alsq not indispute. Mr. Shailendra Dubey, leorned counsei for appellant No.l 6anesh Ram, argued thatthe tpiai Court has committed error in lcwtiynot accepting the piea of the accused that Sukhram along with the accused/appellantsuvere in their agr'icuitural field, Monsai Aothers came and started quarreiing with them,they prevented them from doing their- ayiculturaloiyerations in the field and the complainant party were the a9gressors. In the right of pr'ivate defence, the accused persons inorder to defend themselves might have caused ir\juries to Heer-alal Aothers, but that was done in the right of private defenee. Ther'efore, the accused has been wron9ly held guilty for> commission of offence under Sections302 & 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. He further ar9ued that even the accused par-ty received injuries and those iryuries have not been explained. Sukhram reseived grievous injury of fracture and Aghnibai, ©anesh Ram <& Budhnath also received in^lries and in that respect cha^e sheet has olso been filed cgainst the complainant party which is pending inthe Court of Judiciai Mogistnrte, Dharomjaigarh. Copy of chcir'^esheet filed against the complainant party along with .the injury reportsustained by the accused party has been filed %^ &.A.(S-o^ -^- which is Ex.D-l ond ceport of that matter was tod9ed at Potice Station: Bagbdhap, which isevident from Roznamchareport Ex.&-6. Mr. R.K. Jain, tearneJ/counsei for'dppellcmt No.2 Budhnath, ar'gued that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is not establishect that the occused was in ony way jnvolved in rriie crime in (juestionand he ossauited wi'th Lathi to anyone person of the complninant party. -Even in the merg intimation given by Mansai no criniinal acthos been assighed to accused/appellant Budhnath, therefore, he has been wrongly cowicted for comniission of offence under Sections 302 &325 with the aid of Section 34of the I.P.C. ss C?ntheotherhand,Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned ^ddttionalPublicProsecufor with Mr. Akhil Mishra, lear'ned Panel l^iwfyersuppor'ted.-the judgment of the triai Court. 'Ri9ht of private defence' is-notdefined. Section 96 of the Indjan Penal Code enumerates that rwthing is an offence, if it is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Section 97 deals with the subject-mattep of priyate defence of fhe body and of property. It, however, extends not only to person exercising the right; but toany other person, The ri9ht niay be exercised in -the case of any offence against the body and in the case of offences of theft, ^ • -•'..' •• .-.'•- ."• .'• . - • robbery, mischief or crimihal trespassand attempts at such offences m r'elation to pr-operty. Sections 96 wd 98 confera right of private defence against certain offences and acts. Section 99 lays down the limit ther'efon The ri9ht conferred upon a peraon 'm terms of Section 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by 5ection 99. In ter'ms of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, the XI-HC-22 SD^I^iI tW<h SD^I 'aitlWHfCT 's'ei -i<i'i<i<-i''<, ^y'id. fain'i'My SiT^T •q^T ..&.,A,..'.^?&(?3e ••awEi?'""^""'""""""""!'"-1 xrwir aixico -289- •f^^T" ri9htof privatedefence, in nocase, necesgary to inflict for the pyrpos^ r-ight of private defence of •f+le bo(^ in the last pr-eceding section to.;th4 harm to the assaitant if the offenciel of any of the descriptions enumerafed as moy reasonably cause the appr^et consequencaof suchassault; Secon^i the apprehensioh that grievous hur^t assault". To claim a right of'priya^e death, the accused must show reasonable grounds for apprehendin^ caused to him. The bitf-den in this thbt linft ^P(?d41--( -^Tq^ff ^ f^<€lT^R^R ^; 3lf;OT an^T |extends to inflicting ef more horm than it is of defence. Section 100 provides that the >(^y extends uider the restrictions (nentioned voluntory causin9 of death or of any other which occasions the exercteeof the ri0ht be therein, namely, 'Firet - Such an asscMlt, s^ehension thcit death wil) otherwise be the Ily - Such an assoult os may r'easonably cause witi otherwise be the consequence of sueh a^e defence extendin9 to voluntary causing of there were circumstances givin9 rise to that either death or 9rievous hurt would be biehalf is on the accused. Sections 102 and 105 I.P.C. the right of privcte defence of boij^ os the reosonable opprehension of<j< threat, to commit 1+ie offence, committed, but not. until fhere is r( ri9ht tasts so tong os 1+ie retisona|3!e continuss. So far as exercise of ri9ht causing death is concemed, the Panel Code. Such o ri9ht is availabl Ideal with commencement cnd continuance of jy as well as property. It commences cs soon jarKier to the body trisesfrom cn attempt,of althoigh the offence may not have been ^asonable apprehension. In other words, the apprehension of the danger to the body lof privote defence bf property extended to s^ne 'tS covered by Section 103 of the Indian |e if the offence, the commission of which, or [Tft^^f^t XI-HC-22 sn^i'qn 'f?;lia; 3I©^[ ?b%ch ^fl 'S'ss 'swnvPf, aijlyis, 1^iTiiyy,< ^ HIMCTT a»Hleb.&...^.J.^a2^<7? SfI^T ^RRre ^ifttT -7 the attempting to commit-fhieh, o offence bf any of the descriptiohs night, mischief by fire committed trespass. ^ ; ^casions the exercise of the right, be an etiumerated, viz., rpbbery, house-bredking by ^n any buildin9, theft, mischief or house- Section 104 provides that in Section 103 the rightof privote causing to the wrorg doer of any for commencementand con+inuance d Ir-elation to the offene.es as enumerated in c(efence cdn be exercised to the vofuntary otherthan death. Section 105 provide^ o^the pight of private defence of pcoperty. haj-m Section 105 of the Indian accused whd sets up the plea of self^ not be possible for the Court to pr^ said plea. No positive evidence oll it is possible f0r him to prove the fr-om the witness&s exomined by the^ from the attending qi('cumstonces, the prosecution itself. Eviilence Where the ri9ht of private reasonoble ond probabfe version the accused was necessery for eitjie^ r - the further reasonable <yprehensio4 of estAlishing the plea of self-defe^it discharged by showin9 pre'ponderan^e -defehce ^nifl^l^ tTT^f ^ 'feT^t"^F^R ^) aipgir sii^i. Act casts the burden of proof on the defence and in the abserice of proof, it moy fcsume the correctness or otberwise of the is requjred to adduced by the qccused; [id fact by elicitin9 the necessory materials prosecution. He can establish his plea also is moy transpire from the evidence led by ith^ugh s4id lefence is pleaded, the defence must be a scrt^sfying the Court that the harm causecf by i4' warding off the attack or for forestalling from the side of the occused. The bur-den is on thp occused and the burden stands •an((e of probdsilities in favour' of that plea on [Tft^ ^.fia^ XI-HC-22 TST •<ll41cl'LI, ^flltitis, f»»<ai<ii< sn^i'qii f^iwsn^T ?bHlcb ^T^T. M>^ NIHCTI thXiqi .&'^^ '3?1^T S-WI^ Trfl^T the basis of the material an recd the one which Bes the prosecution is plea to the hilt ^pifrriN 'W^ff^ 'feS •rfsresR ii3'f:OT3IliSI •d. In the matter of Salbn Zia vs, State of U.P. reported in AER 1979 SC3?1, the Apex Court held4hot "It is true that •(he burden on an accused person to establish the plea cjf self-defence is not os onerous as lpn the prosecution and thot, while ^equired to prove its case beyond reasoniAle doubf, ijhe accused need not establish the arid mcy dischar9e his onus by establishing a meiie preponderance of probabilities either by laying biasis for thaf plea "in the cqoss- excrhination of tlte prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evjidence." The number of injuries is riot always a safe critepion for'determinirg who ihe agyessorwas. It cannot b^ injuries are on the body of the a^cused persons a pr'esumption must necessarily be raised that the accused perso of private defence. The defencd coused on the dccused grobdbilis surmises and specu stated as a universal rule that ufhenever' the ^sfiod caused iryur-ies in exercise of the right has to further establish that the injuries so i the version of the right of private defence. In Lakshini Singh vs.JState of B|har reporfed in A1K 1976 SC 2263, the Apex Court held thot 'A plea of rightof |>rivate defence cannotbe bosed on ation. While considering whether the rfght of privat^ defence is available to accused, it is not relevant. whet|ier he mcif have a chance to inflict severe aid mortal»r|juryon the aggressor'. In order to find whether tlie r^ht of private defence is available to an accused, the with care arid viewetj entire incident must be examined in its proper settin9." [•^tf®^ ^:.<3> fe.ft.l^S^^ -^- f^vv TT^??^ ^! The right commences, as awn as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt,Qr;threat,or'commit the offence, although the offence may not have been conimi't'ted but not until there is that reasohcble apprehension. The right lasts so lbn9 as the reasonable apprehension of the donger' to the body continues. In Jai Dev vs. State of Puryab reported in AIR 1963 SC 612, it is held thoit "as soon as the cause •for re<sonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or put to route, there can be no occasion to exer'cise the rightof private defence". The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serying a social purpose .and should not be construed narrowly. InVidhya Singh vs. State df M.P. reported in <UR 1971 SC 1857, it is held that Situations have to bejudged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surroundin9 excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and < pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question,as to whether more force than was necessary was u^ed in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it woyld be inoppropr'iate, as held by this Court, to odopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so natural in a CQurt ropm, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasondble qpprehension of threat to himself cannot be expected'to modulate his defence step by step with any arithhietical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times oi- under normal circumstances." 'VtS.V<7m T <-'A &.A.I^&^.^ (•&- -: ^•--,.-^, \ • ' . , . In the matter ofSetor aiias Raja Sekharan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N; reported iri (2002) 8 SCC 354, the Apex Cpurt has observed that "in order to find iwhether right of private defence is available or not, the njuries receives by the accused, the imminence of threat to his sdifety, the iryuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused hod time to have recourse to public authorities or all relevantfactorsto beconsidered". In Laxman Singh vs, Poorwm Singh and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4566, the Apex Courl-held that "where the d9ht of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the horm caused by the accused was necessary for eitherwcB'ding off the attack or ior forestaHin9 the further reasonabte apprehension from the side pf the accused. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stcmds dischar9ed by showin9 preponderance of probabilities in fovour o^ that plea on the basis of the material on record".. The right of pr-ivate defence.cannot be clajmed when ttie accused is aggressor. In the matter of Butta Singh vs. The State of Punjab repor-ted in <UR 1991 SC 1316, the Apex Court held that "a person who is apgrehending death or bodily iryury cannot weight in golflen scales in the spurof moment and in the heat of cir'cumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants luho were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to -f- ;-HC-22 ^Tf^T^ 'r?~TT^'.ST???T -ys^v^a^s. '9 IS.R?!WR ^ •5c,<^^^T T^q^f -^ f^T?l: •a? 3B?ffi! gn^; expect the •parties to preserve compsure and use exactlyonly do much force in retaliation commensurort'e with th.e danger apprehended to him where assault is iniminent by uSe of force, it would he lawful to repel the force-in self-d^fence and the right of privai'e- defenceconirnences,|as soon as the threat becomes so imminerit. Such sri|uations have to be pragmaticolly viewed antf not (i^th .hi9h-powered spectacles or microscopes to d^tect slight or- even mar^inal overstepping. Due »|fei9htage has to be given to, and hyper technical a|ippoach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping|in view normal humon reaction and conduct, where sel^-preservation is the .poramount consideration. But, (f the fact situotion shows that in the guise of self-pij-eservation, whot really haS been done is to ossault the original cggressor, even after' the cause of reasonable pppj'ehensjon has disappeared/the plea of fight of prvate-defence can legitimately be negatived." . ^ . In ease, if a defencejis made out, ttie accused is entitled to be i . • ' . •• ' '. ~ ' . . '. acquitted and if not he will be ^onvicfedof murder. But in case of use of excessive force, he would be convi^tecl ynderSection 304 of the I.P.C. However, the right of private defence connbt be claimed when the aecused is aggressor. In fhe light of the above pfrinciples of law, now we have to scrutinize the evidence cvailQbteon record in theginstant cose. ^ .. •. Mansai (PW-l),the injured <vitriess, gave merg intimation (Ex.P-2)on 14-6- 1996 at 2230 hours in which he Kad mentioned that a land dispute is 9oing on ! • • '•.;• . . •'. " • . ' ' . ' • • • between him and Sukhram. On.th^at day Sukhrcun was sowii^ podcly in his fiel'd r1*s;^g-s XI-HC-22 ail^T'W ^sn^l ra^lT?r?ra, ^\<0 1 -^ VTf ^fV^, .' .&:..a...f;^Q2,^ T^^' s.fl^T'FRnwsft?! •*lli'-f<!'KT^' •?tsifl"(^R - fZ|~ •^ 3rf:giT3T!?W -. and thinkin9 that he diould not sow paddy By plowirg his field, he went to see the field. He asked Sukhrom not tosow paddy on which.Sanesh, Buna, Aghni & Sukhram started assculting .with a>te and when Bhagatram, Sobha & Heeralal came to intervene, ffanesh attQSkecl Heeralal with axe, whichlanded on the left Mansai stated thot on Fr-iday when side of back portion below the armpif, and Heer'dlal died. Tn the Court evjdence, he went to theagricuttllral field, at that time, Qonedn Ram attacked l-1eeraldl with axe, which landed on the left si<je of back portion. @anesh Ram olsq flssa^itted him on the b6ck port-ion as a result of which he fell down. when his son Bhfljgatram came Sonesh Ram assaulted him also with the ce<e and Budhnathasscult^d with Lathj. THereafter, whenSobharani came he was assaulted with-axe or( right Kand and when his brother Heerala! r'eachecl there, aecused Budhnath fassaulted him with Lathi on his head as a result of which he fell down and acdu&d 6aneA assaulted with axe on left side of back portfon. Heeralal succumlj>ed to the injuries. In cross-examination, Mansai pW-1) hasstated that it i|s correct to scy that he is cultivoting -the a9»'icultural land, which.came tohii| share in partition. Mow'muchiand came in the share of Sukhramin portition h p does not kn>w? It is incorreet tosay that Sukhram has filed any suit regordin^ par'tition in the Dharamjaigorh Court. It is incorrect to -soy that o case again^t them is pending in the Court of Judicial Ma9istrate, bharamjaigarh, under ^ections 325, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 0-1 " ' of the I.P.C. In cross-examinati^ni he has further stated that his son has not assaulted Sukhram, as Sukhram wjis rot present on the sceneof occurr'ence. Aghnibai was present in the field (^nd ther-e was an injury caused by axe on her head, how she received thot injury ^ind whocaused that injury he does not knou».' T^^rt ^: XI-HC-22 ^^ •^ll<4!d'4. i?Tllwis, \.^ W^^IT'RWqi _&:A...l£?'2^ 3!!t?I^T f?SIRT3II^T •Wf^^f^ SlI^TWfWHfttf -{i c ?^'lfiTT ^T4c?f ^ f^5t <^^)< ^a:rf;tTO3d^I Bhagatraro (PW-2) has stat^d in his evidence that &anesh,Aghnibai, Budhram & Budhno were plowing the^ir field, his father (Mansai - PW-l) went to that side and then accused Buclhn^i & Sanedi assaulted his father with axe. Sanesh attacked with axe on baek^ds when he, his brother Sobha & Heeralal came, the accused persons assaulte^l Heeralal. Budhna assaulted with Lathi on back por-tion as a resylt of which| Meeralal fell down and fianesh attacked Heeralal with axe. In cross-exainir^ation, he has admitted thot it is correct to say that &anesh & Budhnath were (^lowing their field, Sukhrohi was in his field and by that time, he was not able t the field. It is correct to say th^t dispute of !and isbetween them cnd the accused persons. He further statetJ that whether Sukh'ram& Aghnibsi received any injury or not, he dpes not krww pending against him, his father <& bi It is incorrect tosay thotcriminal case is fother and at the same time, he stated thtrt Sobharom © Lili (PW-3) has ] his father Mansai and when Bhacp^ start plowir^. Aghnibai was olso present in accused perspns have falsely implici^ted them. He had not seen broken hand and head of Sukhram. Whether Aghjiibai received any injury on head and who assaulted that injury he does'not k^iow, he had not seen any iryyry on heod and body of ©onesh. stated in his evidence that ©aneshassoulted went there. &anesh assaulted him also with axe and thereafter fianesh Ram a^scMlted him cASo with the axe. Ther'eafter', when Heepalai ,went there 6anesh| Ran» assaulted him also withoxe. .When Gmedn assculted him (PW-3), he Lothi. In cross-examination, pora ^an wcy. Budhnatti assaulted Heeralal with 2, he has stated that there was no dispute [^i^^7J INMNWIi—aNWNNU Xi-HC-22 sn^w ft;-)!'* 3W^!< I siHi^ ^[?^ | ^Sf-^Tqi^pI, ^•d'l.y'IA, fs|<l11«y •Jscb '(ITlR-ff g!WW .&.A,.l5o^ sn^i'gTBigT-gfe l^ betu»eenthem and the accysed field and they were not plowiig the not went toobstruct the accused that hand & head of Sukhram we( broken. Whether Sanesh Ram & not know. How theaccused personi ony case is pending in the &harcmja|gorh per^ohs, accused peissons were piowing their own field which belongs to them. All of them did i'rorn plowing the field.It is correct