SHAMBULAL & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by accused/appellants is directed against a judgment dated 30th August 2005 in Sessions Case No. 137/2003 delivered by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) Sheopur (M.P.), holding thereby appellants' guilty for causing attempt to murder of Satyendra Singh for an offence punishable under Section 307 or in alternative under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment of which to serve separate six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23rd February 2003 at 9-30 p.m. when the complainant Satyendra Singh was proceeding to home after closing his STD shop with Banwari and Ritesh, at that moment, accused-appellants came and restricted his way. They abused and threatened him. As he restrained them from doing so, accused Gopal caught hold of his hand from behind and accused Shambhulal with an intention to cause death inflicted an injury on his head by means of tent iron pin with wooden handle (Khooti) i.e a sharp edged but pointed iron blade which is fitted in wooden stick. Consequently, the complainant sustained injury and the blood started coming from the wound. He became unconscious. The bystanders Banwari and Ritesh carried him to the Police Station Badoda, district Sheopur where he lodged the F.I.R. against accused. The injured was medically examined. The investigation was set in motion. The accused were arrested and after their arrest, a weapon of crime was recovered. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal, the Sessions trial was commenced. On recording the evidence and considering the defence put forth by the accused of false implication on previous election of village rivalry, the trial Judge passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused, hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence is passed by the trial court against the evidence adduced and ignoring the settled principles of law. It is submitted that although alleged injury is said to have been caused on the vital part of body of the complainant, but there was no bony injury or serious type of injury which may be sufficient to cause death of injured, as per the medical evidence on record. It is submitted by the counsel that all the witnesses were related to injured and were in inimical relations with accused and therefore their evidence is not at all reliable. That apart, the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. are not established at all to constitute such offence. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants, at the most, can be punished for lesser offence looking to the nature of injuries. On these grounds, it is submitted by the counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.