LALA SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1984, passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge. Unnao convicting the appellant under section 307, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of five years in connection with an incident which is alleged to be took place on 7-7-1983 at about 10.30 p.m.

(2.) It is alleged that on the date of the incident Chandrika Prasad was sleeping in front of his main door and Vishwa Nath was also sleeping nearby. It is further alleged that the accused started saying to Chandrika Prasad that his son Vishwa Nath is doing Mukhbari to the police. Vishwa Nath denied this fact but the accused fired country made pistol causing injuries on the Victim Vishwa Nath. Vishwa Nath was examined by Dr. G.P. Awasthi (P.W. 5) on 8-7-1983 at about 5 a.m. The Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the injured person:

(3.) Chandrika Prasad lodged the report Ext. Ka. 3 on 8-7-1983 at about 12.10 p.m. On receipt of said complaint a case was registered against the accused. The investigation was entrusted to Shri Shyam Sunder Tripathi. S.I. who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The prosecution in support of its case has examined six witnesses. Out of them Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 2). Vishwa Nath (P.W. 3) and P.W. 4 Raja Ram are the witnesses of fact. Raja Ram (P. W. 4) did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Dr. G.P. Awasthi. (P.W. 5) an employee of District Hospital, Unnao had examined the injuries of Vishwa Nath on 8-7-1983 and prepared the injury report Ext. Ka. 4. S.I. Shyam Sunder Tripathi (P.W. 6) had investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. On the other hand the accused had denied the prosecution case and stated that he bas been falsely inflicted in this case due to enmity. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had fired of Vishwa Nath With the intention to kill him. Hence, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.