LAXMAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 preferred by the accused/appellant is directed against a Judgment dated 23 rd November 07 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 31/07 by the Sessions Judge Datia (M.P.), convicting thereby the appellant for causing murder of Hariom Yadav, punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year.

(2.) Briefly narrated the prosecution case is that on 14 th April 06 at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening at village Khiriya Faijulla, Pushpa (PW-3), mother of the complainant/deceased went to fetch a water from the hand-pump of the village whereas the complainant was at home. It is alleged that at the place of hand-pump, there were hot altercations made on account of taking water in between the mother of complainant/deceased and the mother of accused Rooprani who was already there from before. On hearing the loud noise of quarrel, the complaint rushed to the spot and tried to pacify the matter. At that juncture, present appellant accompanied with his accomplices armed with deadly weapons came there. Thereafter accused with an intention to kill fired from his 12 bore gun which pellets hit the abdomen of the complainant causing grievous injuries to him. Coaccused Komal Singh also fired a shot causing an injury on his hand of deceased. After the incident, the injured complainant was taken to Outpost Udina of Police Station Godan and at Outpost Udina, he lodged the F.I.R. The police thereafter referred the injured for his medical examination and treatment to the Govt. Hospital, Indargah, district Datia (M.P.). In the hospital, the causality doctor on the very day on 14th April 2006, at about 9.15 p.m. examined the injured, and after examination declared him dead. A Marg was registered. After inquiry and investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused. On committal the Sessions trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., hence this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Judge is against the peculiar facts, evidence of the case and the law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the statements of the eye witnesses to the effect that all accused having armed with fire arms reached on the spot prior to the incident are not at all worthy of credence. Further, the prosecution examined only interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt against the accused-appellant. It is further contended that the trial Judge has erred to follow the settle proposition of law that if two views appear from the prosecution evidence, then the order of acquittal must be passed. On the basis of above arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the accused be acquitted of the charge.