KALI CHARAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide his judgment dated 31.12.1979 convicted accused Kalicharan and Jamuna tinder section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He further convicted both the accused under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was ordered by him that the sentences awarded to the two accused would run concurrently. It is against their above said convictions and sentences that the two accused have filed the present appeal in this Court.

(2.) Complainant Brajmohan (P.W. 16) as also the accused were residents of village Talgaon in Chhatarpur district. The incident took place on 27.7.1978 at about 8.45 P.M. P.W. 16 Brajmohan had gone to Chhatarpur in connection with some criminal case. A few minutes before the incident, he had got down from a bus at village Lalpur and from there started walking on foot to his village. Apart from certain other persons, C. W. 1 Nilkanth Kurmi and C. W. 2 Lakbanlal had also been with him. He had covered only a small distance from the bus-stop when from behind the beshram trees situated by the side of the foot-path he was fired at thrice and received gun-shot injuries described in Ex. P-i. From the manner in which the gunshots were fired at him, and the nature of injuries received by him as a result of the said shots, there could be little doubt that whosoever had fired the said shots intended to cause the death of Brajrnohan. The only question arising for consideration in the case was with regard to the identity of the persons who had fired the said gunshots at him.

(3.) It was clear from the evidence produced in the case that complainant Brajmohan and the accused belonged to rival political parties. It was also clear that over certain election that had taken place in the village in the recent past there existed bad-blood between the members of the two parties. Again, what was greatly significant was that the complainant had known the accused from before and there was no question of his failing to identify them in case he was successful in having a glimpse of them at the time of the incident.