MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Mishra against the judgement dated 02.05.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No. 159/2011, whereby he has been convicted for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 20,000, in default of which, he was to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. He has also been convicted for offence under section 309 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of which, he was to undergo additional imprisonment of one month. Accused-appellant has also been convicted for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are that one Rajendra Prasad Sharma submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Mahaveerji, District Karauli that he was working as a Teacher in Digambar Jain Higher Secondary School since 1998. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Chagan Lal were also working as Teachers in that very school. On 13.12.2010 at around 11.00 AM when all the teachers were busy in teaching the students, Pradeep Kumar Mishra suddenly came there and fired at Chagan Lal, who was at that time taking attendance of the students of Class-VII. Thereafter, Pradeep Kumar Mishra went to the staff room and closed the door from inside. Complainant along with his colleagues namely; Rakesh Singh Rathore and Vinod Vijay Jain, took Chagan Lal to Govt. Hospital, Hindaun. In the meantime, Pradeep Kumar Mishra also shot at himself from his own mouser. He too was admitted in the same Hospital. On the basis of aforesaid written report, first information report was registered for offence under sections 302 and 309 IPC. Police after usual investigation filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences, but kept the investigation pending for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, who transferred it to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City, District Karauli. The learned trial court on hearing the arguments, framed the charges against the accused-appellant for offence under section 302, 309 and 3/25 of Arms Act, which he denied and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. Defence produced 7 documents. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the learned trial court failed to consider that there was sufficient evidence on record that deceased Chagan Lal had evil designs towards the wife of appellant and his daughters. He used to eve tease them and make ugly gestures to them. Deceased even wanted to sexually exploit wife of the accused-appellant. The appellant was mentally disturbed by constant humiliation and torture meted out to him by the deceased. He even made a complaint against the deceased to the District Collector, Karauli. Copies of the complaint were produced before the trial court marked as Ex.D 5, D 6 and D 7. The trial court has committed serious error of law in disbelieving them only on the premise that no receipt has been produced. Learned counsel submitted that once the accused was arrested, he could not have fabricated any such complaint, which he actually did not send. It is argued that complaint was sent by him, was evident from the fact that they were in the handwriting of the accused-appellant. It is argued that the Investigating Officer Shivram Singh (PW 24) has not conducted any investigation whatsoever with regard to aforesaid letters, which the appellant produced in defence and has rather stated that he did not make any investigation with regard to correctness of the letters whether said to have been written by the appellant to Collector, Karauli.;