SALAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist has preferred this revision against the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 3.6.1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 upholding the order dated 27.3.1987 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge -I Muzffarnagar in S.T. No. 76 of 1985, State Vs. Salamu, convicting him under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/ - with defaulting clause.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the complainant Iddu is watchman of village Chhattalo. Istkhar @ Kharu had affection towards Raes, son of the complainant, who used to work at the fields of Istkhar. The son of the complainant used to get articles from Istkhar. Salamu son of Istkhar used to forbid Raes to work at his father's fields and in this behalf he had also told the complainant many times that his son should not come to the fields of his father otherwise he would shoot Raes. The complainant stopped his son to go to the fields of Istkhar but Istkhar again called him in the year in which the offence was committed. The son of the complainant had sown maize crop in the field of Istkhar @ Kharu. On the day of occurrence, the complainant and his son Raes went to the maize fields of Istkhar @ Kharu. In the evening, when they were returning home, Raes, the son of the complainant was carrying bundle of fodder on his head. He was being followed by Salamu and others. As soon as they reached near the edge of the field of Istkhar, Salamu accused fired at Raes from behind with intention to kill him as a result of which he along with the fodder fell down. On this, the father of Raes ran to catch Salamu but Salamu threatened to kill him also. On hue and cry being raised, Istyak and Shaukat came who saw Salamu firing at Raes in the flash of torches. He went to the police station with the son and lodged an oral report. The injured was medically examined. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Salamu. The statements of P.W.1 -Iddu, P.W.2 Istyak, P.W.3 Shaukat, P.W.4 Raes, P.W. 5 Dr. N.K. Sharma, P.W.6 S.I. B.C. Garg, P.W.7 Dr. Sanjai Kumar were recorded. The accused was examined under Section 313Cr.P.C. in which he denied having committed the offence.

(3.) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, First, Muzaffar Nagar, after perusing the record convicted the accused as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1987 which was dismissed and the sentence was upheld against which order the revisionist has filed the present revision.