- (1.) G. B. Singh, J. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of Krishna-appellant for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that Krishna, appellant on 29-11-1983 at about 4. 30 p. m. in front of the office of Executive Engineer Hydel Depart ment, Sultanpur Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur fired country made pistol upon Vinod Kumar and thereby caused several lire arm injuries to him. On the alarm raised Krishna and his associates ran away. THE occurrence was seen by several persons present on the spot. It was also the case of the prosecution that Jagannath Lal father of Vinod Kumar injured, on one hand, and Avanendra Pratap Singh and Surendra Pratap Singh, on the other, are on ligitating terms since long. Jagannath Lal won some of the cases against the two persons on account of which they were harbouring ill-will against him and his sons Vinod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar. Vinod Kumar is a Revenue Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer Hydel Department, Sultanpur whereas his elder brother Sudhir Kumar is Lekhpal in Tahsil Sadar. Shailendra alias Pappu son of Surendra Pratap Singh is a bad character. Krishna accused is his associate. Krishna attempted to commit murder by firing country made pistol at the instance of Shailendra alias Pappu. On 29-11-1985 at about 4. 30 p. m. Sudhir Kumar had gone to the office of Vinod Kumar inform him that he was going on portal and so he would not go to home. Vinod Kumar had come out of the office to leave his brother and while proceeding towards north from the office with that object, Krishna fired country made pistol upon him. The first information report was lodged by Vinod Kumar injured at the Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur on the same day at 5. 00 p. m. On that report case under Section 307,i. P. C. was registered and Vinod Kumar was sent to Hospital, Sultanpur for medical examination. His injuries were examined there on the same day at 5. 20 p. m. by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3 ). He found following injuries on his person : (1) Multiple punctured wound over the whole of face, extending from right ear upto left side of ear 4 cm. in front of it. Both side of forehead, all over size, 1 cm. X. 1 cm. x skin to skin deep upto 3x3 cm. (2) A punctured wound in left eye 4 'o clock position just adjacent to Iris, with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on left eye on medical aspect, with echymosis of both eye lids on left side, over 4 cm. X 2. 5 cm. (3) Echymosis of both eye lid right side over the upper eye lid 4cm. X 1. 5 cm. with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on medical aspect of right eye. (4) Multiple punctured wound on both lips with lacerated wound on the upper lip inner aspect, midline, 1. 5 cm x. 5 cm x tissue deep. Size of punctured wound was. 1 x. l X mucous membrane deep. (5) Lacerated wound of the gum left side upper incisor tooth absent,. 5cmx. 5 cm. lacerated wound with bleeding present. , 2nd upper incisor left side was slightly movable. (6) Lacerated wound on the tongue left side, laterally. 5cm. medical to left side of tongue margin. Size 2 cm. X-5 cm x. 3 cm. , fresh bleeding present. (7) Multiple punctured wound on the hard and soft palate present all over, size. 1 x. Ix tissue deep. All the injuries except Nos. 5 and 6 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Injury No. 6 was found simple. Injury No. 5 was referred to Dental Surgeon as one of the incisor was found missing. According to Dr. R. S. Agarwal all the injuries were caused by gun shot and were fresh at the time of examination. The case was investigated by S. I. Shyam Narain Singh (P. W. 7 ). He was not present at the Police Station when the First Information Report was lodged. The papers were therefore, received by him at Police Outpost, Lachmanpur. He at once proceeded to the place of incident, examined Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and Ram Tilak Singh witnesses. He then inspected the place of incident and prepared its site- plan. He found blood stains at the place of incident. He therefore, took blood stained and non-blood stained earth from there and prepared its Fard. He then came to the District Hospital, Sultanpur and interrogated Vinod Kumar there. On 30-11-1985 he interrogated other witnesses. He made several attempts to arrest the appellant but he was not found at his house. The Investigating Officer, therefore, obtained processes under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. against the appellant and executed them. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet.
(3.) ON behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined. Durga Prasad (P. W. 1), Ram Tilak Singh (P. W. 2), Sudhir Kumar (P. W. 4) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 6) are witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3) examined injuries and Clerk Constable Shafi Ahmad (P. W. 5) prepared chik report on the basis of the written report made by Vinod Kumar and made entry in the G. D. S. I. Shyam Narain Singh (P. W. 7) investigate the case. The accused admitted that he is- an associate of Shailendra alias Pappu. He stated that on account of this association he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that the witnesses did not know him and he was named in the First Information Report at the instance of one Shri Krishna Chandra Srivastava, Advocate. He did not give any evidence in defence.;