GOPAL TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-Gopal Tiwari and Ramesh Tiwari have been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.

(2.) The appellants and complainant-Mukesh Sharma submitted an application under Section 320(5), Cr. P.C. for permission to compound the offence. This application is supported by the affidavit of the complainant. It is mentioned therein that appellant No. 2 Ramesh Tiwari is a retired Railway driver and his son appellant No. 1 Gopal Tiwari was booking clerk at Sagar Railway Station. Complainant-Mukesh Sharma was Ticket Collector at the same Railway Station at the time of the incident. It is also stated that now their relations are very cordial and all differences have been resolved. They are living in peace and harmony. By order-sheet dated 10-8-1998 of this Court this application was taken on record and it was observed that this application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

(3.) Mukesh Sharma (P.W. 13) has deposed that on 8-2-1989 he was on duty as Ticket Collector at the gate of the Railway Station. Accused Gopal and Ramesh Tiwari came near him. They abused him. Accused Gopal said "you have got yourself transferred and how will you save yourself now". Accused Ramesh Tiwari exhorted his son to strike at him. Thereupon accused Gopal dealt a knife blow on the left side of his chest. There was bleeding from the injury. His evidence has been corroborated by Uma Shankar (P.W. 14) who is his maternal uncle and who was present on the spot. He has lodged the report Ex. P 3 at the police station at 9.30 p.m. The other witnesses have been declared hostile. Dr. Vinod Kumar Rawat (P.W. 9) has deposed that he had examined Mukesh at 9.45 p.m. and found an incised wound on the left side of his chest at fifth intercostal space two inches lateral to the midline size 1" x 1/4" x cavity deep as per his report Ex. P17. It was caused by hard and sharp object. He was admitted in the hospital. Dr. P.K. Dhagat (P.W. 1) has testified that he had performed the operation on this injury. He has given his opinion as per Ex. P1 : "In view of the severe haemorrhage this injury was dangerous in nature to have caused death, in absence of immediate medical aid". He has stated in cross-examination that the injury was not on vital part and it was simple.