JUDGMENT : - Learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2004 convicted the accused Narsi for the offences under Sections 148, 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him under Section 148 IPC to three years simple imprisonment; under Section 307 IPC to ten years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment; and under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Accused Narsi has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 324 and 323/149 IPC. 2. Earlier the learned Trial Court had on conclusion of the trial in Sessions Case No. 29/2001, of the accused Mansukha; Manohari alias Manohar; Harish alias Dablya; Hari Ram; Smt. Anokhi; Smt. Sita; Smt. Tulsi and Smt. Beena, vide order dated 14.11.2002 convicted them for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323 IPC and each one of them were sentenced under Section 148 IPC to three years simple imprisonment; under Section 323 IPC to one year's simple imprisonment; under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC to ten years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment; and under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 3. In respect of the incident which had taken place in the present case, a report was lodged by one Vijay Singh at Police Station Manpur, District Dausa on 21st September, 2000. It was mentioned in the report that on the same day, at about 6.30 A.M., when they were harvesting their crops of Bajra, Chola and Gwar, Mansukha, Narsi, Hariram, Harish @ Bharthari; Manohari, Anokhi wife of Narsi, Sita wife of Manohari, Tulsi wife of Hariram and Beena wife of Harish had came all of sudden, armed with Lathies, Barchi, Dhariya and stones. It was further mentioned that the accused Narsi was having a gun with him. Thereafter, the women folk of the accused party started pelting stones. The other accused persons, having sharp edged weapons and lathies, caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. It was further mentioned that the accused Narsi was having a gun with him. Thereafter, the women folk of the accused party started pelting stones. The other accused persons, having sharp edged weapons and lathies, caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. After hearing the hue and cry, Kishan and Suresh came at the seen of occurrence and Suresh was seriously injured. Similarly, Vijay Singh, Madan, Rajneesh and Smt. Badami had also sustained injuries. It was also mentioned in the report that Anokhi wife of Hariram was supplying cartridges to the accused Narsi. Further, it was mentioned in the report that Mitthan and Malkhan died on the spot due to firearm injuries. On the aforesaid report, a regular First Information Report (375/2000)(Exhibit P-45) was registered at Police Station Manpur, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 302, 307 and 323 IPC. 4. Thereafter, the usual investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons, except Narsi. On filing of the said charge sheet before the Magistrate, the case was then committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter it was transferred to the learned Trial Court. Trial commenced with the framing of charges against the accused persons which had been denied by them. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 21 witnesses in the trial(Sessions Case No. 29/2001) and exhibited 46 documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned Trial Court. On conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellants namely Mansukha; Manohari alias Manohar; Harish alias Dablya; Hari Ram; Smt. Anokhi; Smt. Sita; Smt. Tulsi and Smt. Beena were convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated 14.11.2002, as aforementioned. 5. Later on the investigation against the accused Narsi, kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., came to be concluded after his arrest. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against accused Narsi before the concerned Magistrate and the case was then committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bandikui on 30th June, 2003. The trial in the case(Sessions Case No. 43/2003) had then commenced with framing of charges against the accused Narsi for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 and 323/149 IPC. The trial in the case(Sessions Case No. 43/2003) had then commenced with framing of charges against the accused Narsi for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 and 323/149 IPC. The prosecution had chosen to produce 10 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused Narsi was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated as under: ^^esjs ifjokj okys gekjs [ksr ij Qly dkVus x;sA eqLrxhl ifjokj fot; flag enu flag] ey[kku jtuh’k] jkeizlkn >wek lkfo=h cknke ewyh o buds fj’rsnkj ckcwyky fd’ku yky lqjs’k o yYyw o 2&4 vU; vkneh ftuds uke eS ugh tkurk gkFkks es ykBh cjNh dês o cUnwd Fks enu flag o ey[kku ds gkFk es canwd Fkh esjs ifjokj ij geyk dj jgs Fks enu flag us cUnwd nks Qk;j fd;k ftlls esjs firk dh tka?k es xksyh yxh enu flag nwljk Qk;j djus okyk gh Fkk fd eSus lkspk fd eqLrxhl yksx esjs ifjokj dks tku ls ekjs nsaxsA vr% eSus ey[kku ds gkFk ls canwd Nhu yh o vkØked yksxks dks Mjkus ds fy, ,d gokbZ Qk;j fd;k fdUrq tc Hkh ;s ¼eqLrxhl i{kdkjku½ ugh ekus rks eSus nwljk Qk;j fd;k ftlds NjsZ gok es buds yx x;s gks rks eq>s irk ugh eS funksZ”k gwWA eq>s >wBk Qlk;k gSA^^ 6. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 09.04.2004, while acquitting the accused Narsi under Section 324 and 323/149 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant which has come up for hearing before us. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant Narsi has vehemently argued that no offence had been committed by the accused. According to them, whatever damage was caused to the complainant party was in exercise of right of private defence, which is apparent from the fact that land in question was in possession of the accused persons. He has invited our attention to the statements of the prosecution witnesses Rajneesh(P.W.3), Madan Singh(P.W.1), Kishan Lal(P.W.8) etc. etc., to emphasise on the point that from their statements it is reflected that the accused party who was in the possession of the land in question and they had sown the crops which the complainant party tried to harvest, so as to unsettle their possession. etc., to emphasise on the point that from their statements it is reflected that the accused party who was in the possession of the land in question and they had sown the crops which the complainant party tried to harvest, so as to unsettle their possession. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant Narsi has submitted that as a matter of fact, it was the accused party which was in possession of the land in question for last 10 to 12 years and it was complainant party who were the aggressors who tried to dispossess the accused from the agricultural field. He has also submitted that the prosecution had not placed any thing on record to show that the possession was actually with the complainant party and they had sown the crops, which was standing on the field. He has also submitted that the owner of the field namely Punia had no right to hand over the possession, if any, to the complainant party. In order to bring home his argument that the accused persons had exercised right of private defence, learned counsel for the accused appellant Narsi has submitted that Mansukha, head of the family of the accused party had in fact sustained injury on the thigh and it was thereafter, that Narsi had come on the seen of occurrence with a gun and made two fires in the air, so as to threaten the other side and to have them disbursed. He has also submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injury on person of the accused Mansukha, which also casts a shadow of doubt on their case. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further submitted that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, as for instance, one set of witnesses stated that the dispute arose when parties started cutting the grass whereas other stated that it was on account of the harvesting of the crops. With these circumstances and by pointing out certain facts from the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the accused Narsi had committed the offence and he had in fact caused injuries to the complainant party in exercise to his right of private defence. With these circumstances and by pointing out certain facts from the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the accused Narsi had committed the offence and he had in fact caused injuries to the complainant party in exercise to his right of private defence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused Narsi by the learned Trial Court, deserves to be quashed and set aside and he be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court after referring to and pointing out the evidence, on the basis of which the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from it, he has invited our attention to the statements of Punia, owner of the land in question and other prosecution witnesses. He has also referred to the statements of the accused given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence on record to show that it was the accused-persons alone who were the aggressors and gave severe beatings to the complainant party, resulting in death of two persons and injuries to others. Learned Public Prosecutor has also invited our attention to the site plan and material documents collected during the course of investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor has emphasised on the fact that from the evidence on record it is revealed that accused-party had earlier retained possession of the land in question from its owner by force but subsequently with the help of Tehsildar concerned the possession was handed over to the khatedar, who had thereafter given the land for cultivation to Malkhan on the term of sharing of the yield. He has also submitted that it was the accused who tried to take revenge and to get back the possession of the land by force at the time when the crop was ripe for harvesting. According to him, the evidence recorded by the prosecution leaves no room of doubt that the accused Narsi had used firearm more than once, resulting in death of two persons namely Mitthan and Malkhan and injuries sustained by Suresh and Madan. According to him, the evidence recorded by the prosecution leaves no room of doubt that the accused Narsi had used firearm more than once, resulting in death of two persons namely Mitthan and Malkhan and injuries sustained by Suresh and Madan. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter including the fact that the injuries, sustained by the complainant party, were duly explained by the prosecution witnesses. The finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court is based on the evidence produced by the prosecution and the same does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the appeal filed by the accused-appellant deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be affirmed. 9. On careful and anxious consideration of the evidence on record produced by the prosecution we are of the view that in the instant case allegations against the accused-appellant Narsi are well proved and the finding given by the learned Trial Court is based on material on record. Since the initiation of the present criminal case, with lodging of First Information Report by Vijay Singh(P.W. 4) and from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses as has come before the Trial Court, the consistent version is that it was accused Narsi, who had used firearm which resulted in the death of the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan. In the first version of the prosecution(Exhibit P-2) it had been clearly stated that the accused Narsi had fired with a gun and the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan had died on the spot after sustaining firearm injuries on their persons. Further, it has come in the report that the prosecution witness Suresh(P.W.9) was also injured and he had sustained number of injuries including the injury caused by firearm. Similarly, the informant, Vijay Singh(P.W.4), Madan Singh (P.W.1), Rajneesh(P.W.3), and Smt. Badam(P.W.5) had also sustained injuries at the hands of the accused party. The prosecution version is further established from the documents on record which were collected during the course of investigation such as the Site Plan(Exhibit P-3) and other memos prepared by the police. Therefore, it is amply clear that the accused Narsi, who was armed with a gun, had used the same resulting in injury on the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan, causing their instant death. Therefore, it is amply clear that the accused Narsi, who was armed with a gun, had used the same resulting in injury on the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan, causing their instant death. This act clearly proves that he committed murder of two persons with full intention in respect of it. 10. The prosecution witness Madan Singh(P.W.1) had deposed before the Trial Court: ^^ujlh /kM+k/kM+ canwd pykrk jgk canwd dh ey[kku ds eqga ij yxh ftlls og ygqyqgku gksdj tehu ij fxj iM+k] blds ckn feÎu ds canwd dh xksyh pYkkbZ og Hkh ygqyqgku gksdj tehu ij fxj iM+k mlds Nkrh es xksyh yxh nks xksfy;k¡ pykbZ] ftlls ey[kku o feÎu ekSds ij gh [kRe gks x;s^^ Ram Prasad Meena(P.W.2) had stated before the Trial Court: ^^rc ujlh us lcls igys gekjs C;kgh fd’ku yky ij xksyh pykbZ og uhps x;s o tku cpk yh] fQj esjs QwQkth lqjs’k ij xksyh pykbZ tks muds eqag ij yxh tks ogh ygqywgku gksdj fxj x;s] fQj ey[kku ij ujlh us xksyh pykbZ tks muds eqag ij yxh oks ogh ygqywgku gksdj ogh [kRe gks x;s] rFkk nks xksfy;kW ujlh us esjs firk feÎu yky ij pykbZ tks muds lhus es yxh og Hkh ygqywgku gksdj ogh [kRe gks x;sA^^ Another witness of the prosecution namely Rajneesh (P.W.3) had also made similar deposition before the Trial that, ^^ujlh us igyh cUnqd ey[kku ds eqag ij ekjh] ftlls ey[kku ogh fxj x;k] mlds ckn ujlh us feÎu dh Nkrh es xksyh ekjh] ftlls og Hkh fxj x;k] mlds ckn esjs QwQkth lqjs’k ds ujlh us cUnwd dh eqag ij ekjh oks Hkh ogh fxj x;s] -------------- ey[kku o feÎu xksyh yxus ls ekSds ij gh [kRe gks x;sA^^ The informant, Vijay Singh(P.W.4) had given detailed narration of facts before the Trial Court with regard to the manner in which the accused party had attacked the members of the complainant party, as result of which many of them sustained injuries and the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan had died on the spot. He had deposed: ^^ujlh us esjs HkkbZ ey[kku ds canwd ls xksyh ekjh tks ey[kku ds eqag o Nkrh ij yxh] mlds ckn feÎu ds ekjhA ujlh us feÎu ds xksyh ekjh tks isV es yxh fQj feÎu fxj x;kA------------lqjs’k ds Hkh xksyh ekjh ftlls mlds pksVs vkbZ o og fxj x;kA-----------ey[kku o feÎu ekSd ij gh e`R;q gks xbZA^^ Another material witness of the prosecution namely Smt. Badam(P.W. 5) wife of Mal Khan, the deceased who had also been injured in the incident, had stated: ^^cUnwd ujlh us pykbZ tks ey[kku ds eqag ij yxh ftlls og [kRe gks x;k] nwljh cUnwd ujlh us pykbZ tks feÎw ds Nkrh ij yxh ftlls og Hkh ogh [kRe gks x;kA-------------esjk uunksbZ lqjs’k vk;k rc mlds Hkh cUnwd dh ujlh us eqag ij xksyh pykdj ekjk ftlls og csgks’k gks x;kA^^ Jhuma(P.W.6) had stated: ^^gekjs lkFk bu LkHkh us ekjihV dh fQj ujlh us canwd pykuk ‘kq: dj fn;k] canwd dh ey[kku ds eqag ij yxh o feÎw ds canwd dh Nkrh ij yxhA------xksyh yxus ls feÎw o ey[kku tehu ij fxj x;s o [kRe gks x;sA------------- lqjs’k Hkkx dj ogkW vk;k rc ujlh us lqjs’k ds Hkh xksyh ekjh tks mlds eqag ij yxhA ftlls lqjs’k fxj x;k o csgks’k gks x;kA^^ Another important prosecution witness namely Kishanlal (P.W.8) has corroborated the case of the prosecution and stated: ^^brus eS ihNs ls ujlh ekLVj us vkdj canwd pykuk ‘kq: dj fn;k eS gkFk tksM+ jgk Fkk] canwd igys&igys esjs Åij pykbZ eS cSB x;k] nwljh canwd ehBk ij pykbZ og ygqywgku gksdj fxj x;k] fQj canwd dh ey[kku ds yxh tks eqag ij yxh fQj dgk isV ij yxh] ;g ogh fxj x;s] fQj canwd dh lqjs’k ds yx xbZ] tks eqag o Nkrh es yxh]]]]]]]]]]]]^^ Similarly, Suresh(P.W.9), another important witness of the prosecution, who had sustained firearm injury caused by the accused Narsi, stated: ^^canwd dh xksyh ehBk yky dh Nkrh es yxh og ogh uhps ygqywgku gksdj fxj x;k] ey[kku ds Qk;j dh eqag o Nkrh ij yxh ;g nksuks ekSds ij gh [kRe gks x;sA ujlh us esjs Åij Qk;j fd;k ftlls esjs eqga o Nkrh eS yxh-------^^ 11. On consideration of the aforesaid specific statements of the prosecution witnesses against the accused Narsi for having committed the offence of murder of Mitthan and Mal Khan and perusal of their entire statements goes to show that the same are reliable. Even from the testimony of the witnesses in the cross examination, the prosecution version is well established and the defence has failed to shake the same in any manner, as they have stood firmly in respect of the role played by the accused Narsi in committing murder of Mitthan and Mal Khan. The deposition of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is consistent and without any contradiction. The fact that the accused Narsi had used firearm resulting in death of two persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In this regard, another important evidence produced by the prosecution is that of the medical jurists which also fortifies the prosecution case with regard to commission of the crime of murder by the accused Narsi and the death of Mal Khan and Mitthan having been caused by firearm. Dr. Prakash Chand Satiya along with Dr. Ghanshyam Meena were called on the site and they conducted the postmortem. He had corroborated the fact of preparation of the post mortem reports of the deceased Malkhan and Mitthan. The nature of injuries given out in the post mortem shows that they had been caused by firearm and the medical jurists had recovered pellets from the body of the deceased. It has also been deposed that number of organs of the deceased were damaged on account of gunshot injuries. The cause of death was said to be the injuries sustained by the deceased. Likewise, Dr. Abha Jain(P.W.10) had examined the injuries sustained by Suresh and had also advised for x-ray. The x-ray report (Exhibit P-15) goes to show that gunshot injuries were sustained by the injured Suresh and pellets were seen in the x-ray. It is further clear that the injured Suresh had sustained firearm injuries on the vital parts of the body. 13. From the aforesaid medical evidence on record it is well established that the deceased Mal Khan and Mitthan had died on account of firearm injuries sustained by them on vital parts of their body and the same were dangerous to life. 14. 13. From the aforesaid medical evidence on record it is well established that the deceased Mal Khan and Mitthan had died on account of firearm injuries sustained by them on vital parts of their body and the same were dangerous to life. 14. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the injury sustained by the accused Mansukha on his thigh had not been explained by the prosecution and as such, their case becomes doubtful is concerned, a close look to the evidence on record produced by the prosecution also goes to show that there is no substance in the argument so raised. A bare perusal of statement of Suresh(P.W.9); the statement recorded during the course of earlier trial(Exhibit D-13) and his statement before the police during the course of investigation, under Section 161 Cr.P.C.(Exhibit D-14), also establishes the said fact. Suresh S/o. Jagannath in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-14) stated: ^^>XkM+s es ealq[kk dkQh vkxs vk x;k Fkk blfy, ujlh }kjk pykbZ xksyh dk ,d NjkZ mlds Hkh iSj es yxk FkkA^^ 15. Similarly, Kishanlal had also stated in his statement before the police(Exhibit D-11) and explained the manner in which the injury was sustained by Mansukha. In other words, the prosecution witnesses had explained the injury sustained by the accused Mansukha and that too from the very inception. The said prosecution witnesses had explained the injury of Mansukha during the course of investigation which was concluded by filing of first challan against the co-accused persons. The statement of Kishanlal was recorded by the police on 21st September, 2000 and that of Suresh Chand S/o. Jagannath on 12th October, 2000. During the course of first trial, Suresh had deposed before the Court on 23rd July, 2001 and also in the instant trial(as P.W.9) on 9th January, 2004. Therefore, the injury sustained by the accused Mansukha is well explained consistently from the very beginning and it cannot be said to be a case of afterthought of the prosecution. 16. From overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court, including injured witnesses and medical jurists, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Narsi had the intention to commit the offence alleged and used firearm causing injuries on the persons of the deceased. 16. From overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court, including injured witnesses and medical jurists, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Narsi had the intention to commit the offence alleged and used firearm causing injuries on the persons of the deceased. It was the result of the injuries sustained by the deceased Mitthan and Mal Khan on their vital parts by firearm that they had died. The medical jurists had very categorically deposed that the cause of death of the deceased persons was result of gunshot wounds which were dangerous to life. The pellets had also been recovered from the body of the deceased which further connects the accused-appellant with commission of the crime. On careful consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court we are of the considered opinion that it has rightly arrived to the finding which is based on the evidence produced before it. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law and no interference is called for by this Court. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Narsi has no force and the same deserves to be rejected. 17. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Narsi S/o. Mansukha is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 09.04.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 43/2003 is affirmed.