Shrikant Tripathi - (1.) THE appellant Krishna Gopal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.3.1982 rendered by Sri O. P. Jain, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in S.T. No. 509 of 1980, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 324, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years.
(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the marriage of Kamlesh, who is the daughter of the sister of the complainant Amar Singh, was settled with the appellant, without any dowry and Re. 1 was to be given as a token money by way of the dowry. But the appellant, after the engagement, desired to have a motor cycle in the dowry. THE injured Devram Singh, who is the son of the complainant, took active part in managing the affairs of the marriage and opposed the demand of the appellant, consequently the appellant could not get the motor cycle, due to which he developed a grudge against the injured Devram Singh. On 3.5.1980, the injured Devram Singh had gone to Dhampur for learning typewriting. At about 9 a.m. on that day, the appellant Krishna Gopal alongwith the co-accused Bhupendra Singh approached the injured Devram Singh in the National Commercial Type Service. On the request of the appellant, the injured Devram Singh accompanied him for shopping in the market. After some purchases, on the request of the injured Devram Singh, the appellant and co-accused Bhupendra Singh alias Bhoja decided to go to the house of the injured Devram Singh. Accordingly they proceeded for the village of the injured Devram Singh, but before proceeding there, they witnessed a cinema show at Dhampur in the evening show from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and thereafter they went to the village of the injured on two different cycle. When they reached near kanjar wala kuan in Sherkot, they met the witnesses Roop Chand and Karan Singh, who are uncle of the injured Devram Singh. After some talk with the said witnesses, the injured, appellant and co-accused proceeded for the village of the injured. When they reached near the grove of one Anwar, the appellant asked the injured Devram Singh to stop as he was having pain in stomach. THE injured Devram Singh stopped his cycle. After that, the appellant said that the injured Devram Singh provided a hurdle on his way of getting a motor cycle in the marriage and due to that he would teach a lesson to him. THE appellant Krishna Gopal, on the exhortation given by the co-accused Bhupendra alias Bhoja, assaulted the injured Devram Singh with a country made pistol, consequently the injured sustained fire arm injuries. On hearing the shouts, the witnesses Karan Singh and Roop Chand, who were at some distance behind the injured, arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. THE complainant lodged the F.I.R. at the police station concerned and the police proceeded to make investigation. THE injured Devram Singh was medically examined by Dr. R. B. Saxena on the same day at about 23.25 hours. An X-ray of the left shoulder, back and face of the injured Devram Singh was also done in the District Hospital, Bijnor by Dr. S. M. Lal. THE Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused Bhupendra alias Bhoja. THE appellant and co-accused were charged under Section 307, I.P.C. THEy denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Dr. S. M. Lal proved the X-ray plates Exts. Ka-4 to 6 and X-ray reports. He has deposed that two big radio opaque shadows near the chin and neck and back of the injured Devram Singh were found on X-ray. These shadows were due to presence of pellets. P.W. 2 Amar Singh is the father of the injured Devram Singh. He is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has proved the F.I.R. P.W. 3 Devram Singh is the injured. He has supported the prosecution story. P.W. 4 Roop Chand happens to be an eye-witness of the occurrence, has supported the prosecution story during the examination-in-chief but resiled during the cross-examination from his statements recorded during the examination-in-chief and did not support the prosecution story. P.W. 5 Ambey Sharan Gupta is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Hari Singh was posted as Head Moharrir at the police station Sherkot. These two witnesses have adduced the evidence of formal nature. P.W. 7 Dr. R. B. Saxena has proved the fire arm injuries sustained by the injured. According to this witness, the injuries sustained by the injured Devram Singh were simple and could have been caused at the time and place alleged in the F.I.R. He has further proved the injury report Ex. Ka-9.
(3.) THE accused have not adduced any evidence in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the testimony of the injured Devram Singh duly corroborated by the medical evidence was believable and sufficient to record a valid conviction against the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that non-examination of witnesses Piarey Singh and Balbir Singh were not fatal in view of the fact that they were not material witnesses and they had merely informed the father of the injured regarding the incident and had not seen the occurrence.;