MADOO SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mandoo Singh, convict appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri V.M. Kher. IV Additional- Sessions Judge. Etah, dated 27/10/1978 in S.T. No. 213 of 1976-State v. Mandoo Singh convicting and sentencing him under section 307 I.P.C. to seven years RI.

(2.) The prosecution case is that about four days before the occurrence of 20/1/1975 one Dan Sahai Garhariya r/o village Tunda P.S. Anwapur, district Etah, lost his he-goat. He suspected that it was stolen away by one Luxman Jatav of village Samaspur Degri. On 20.1.1975 a Panchayat was held at the house of Pancham Pradhan in, village Samaspur at about 1 P.M. This Panchayat was attended by Dan Sahai accompanied by Khub Chandra complainant (P.W.1), Zalim Singh and Karan Singh on the one side and by Luxman Jatav accompanied by Mandoo Singh accused on the other side. Many others were also in the said Panchayat. Dan. Singh had placed the price of said he- goat at Rs. 100/. However, in the said Pancbayat Mandoo Singh accused suggested to Dan Sahai to accept Rs. 10/ only from Luxman Jatav. Dan Sahai remonstrated that the said offer was too low and it should at least be Rs. 50/-. Mandoo Singh accused b came enraged. Khub Chandra complainant taking side d Dan Sahai told Mandoo Singh accused Dot to show trapper. At this Mandoo Singh accused started hurling abuses at the complainant Khub Chandra. He retorted and told him to slap abusing him. At this Mandoo Singh accused is said to have taken out a country- made pistol from his phent and fire it at Khub Chandra complainant. Its pellets hit on both thighs of the complainant: The accused ran away. The complainant later, on the same day, at 4 P.M. lodged oral F.I.R. at P.S. Anwapur, four miles away from village Shamshapur Degri where the incident had taken place. In the F.I.R. the accused-appellant was named as his assailant having fired one shot from his country-made pistol at him.

(3.) The appellant denied the occurrence and pleaded his false implication in this case at the hands of the complaint and his witnesses in collusion with the police. He did not lead any evidence in defence.