RANJIT SINGH KARAMSING PUNJABI Vs. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant and respondents Nos. 1 to 12 were accused Nos. 1 to 12 respectively in Sessions Case No. 66/81 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The respondents were tried for offences punishable under section 342, read with section 34 I.P.C., section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. for wrongfully confining deceased Amarjeet Singh by tying him to a tree after tying his hands and legs and for causing his death by accused No. 2 firing a shot at him on his legs and accused No. 1 firing three shots -two on his chest and one on his left shoulder -on 27 -8 -1978 at about 3 p.m. near Chondinala near Dehare village in Ahmednagar taluk and District of Maharashtra, in furtherance of their common intention of wrongfully confining him and murdering him.

(2.) THE defence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 was that they had gone to arrest the deceased who was involved in some cases and against whom a non -bailable warrant had been issued and when they attempted to arrest him near Dehare village where he was going in a truck towards Shirdi there was an altercation between them; that the deceased took the revolver (M.O. 9) from its holster fixed to the belt of accused No. 1 and shot at accused No. 2 causing grievous injury on his right thigh; that then there was scuffle between deceased and accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 succeeded in snatching the revolver from the deceased; that then the deceased attacked accused No. 1 with the 'Rampuri' knife (M.O. 6) and in order to save himself and accused No. 2, accused No. 1 fired three shots from his revolver (M.O. 9) at the deceased. The defence of accused Nos. 3 to 12 was one of total denial.

(3.) ON the said material, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution evidence and held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge for the said offences to the accused and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had established that accused No. 1 had shot and killed deceased Amarjeet Singh in exercise of the right of private defence of his person and the person of accused No. 2 and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.