STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHANIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal aggrieving with the judgment of acquittal passed on 7-12-1989 in Sessions Case No. 60/89 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) whereby the Respondent-Shaniram was acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC.

(2.) As per brief prosecution story, taking the dispute of election of Patel at Village Kunwarper, on 4-7-1988 at about 2.00 a.m. in the night the Respondent came to the complainant: Indersai armed with tangi and assaulted Indersai with the said weapon and caused injuries to the complainant. Incident of report was lodged at 9.00 a.m. at police station Lakhanpur and on the basis of which FIR Ex. P.11 was registered against the Respondent. Complainant was sent to Primary Health Center, Lakhanpur for medical examination vide Ex. P.5 and Investigating Officer left the scene of occurrence from where plain soil and bloodstained soil were collected and seized vide Ex. P.4. On 6-7-2088 on the basis of Ex. P.l memorandum of the Respondent weapon of offence tangi was seized vide Ex. P.2. Lungi on the Appellant was seized vide Ex. P3. Appellant was also sent to medical examination Ex. P.7 and weapon of offence was also sent to the doctor. Upon examination of the complainant, doctor opined that the injuries found on the body of the complainant could be caused by the said weapon of offence. The complainant was advised to x-ray test on his head and x-ray was also done. Spot map was made vide Ex. P. 12. Patwari also prepared a map vide Ex. P.8. After recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Ambikapur.

(3.) The learned J.M.F.C. committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur who made over the case the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur for trial. Charges were framed against the Respondent under Section 307 of the IPC and were read over and explained to the Respondent, who adjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. His defence was that Padum, son-in-law of the complainant, came to him and told that he (Padum) assaulted his father-in-law (i.e. complainant) and at the time of assault by Padum. Shyamdhan was present.