DURGAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in these appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Cr. P.C."), is to the judgment and order dated 30.6.2007, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 212 of 2006, State v. Pramod Kumar and others, whereby the accused-appellants Smt. Durgawati Devi, Smt. Kanchan Mishra, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Pramod Kumar Mishra have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. with further imprisonment for one year under Section 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. However, all the accused-appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 504, I.P.C.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals, in brief, are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 17.11.2005 at P. S. Buxa, District Jaunpur by the complainant Smt. Mamta Devi Mishra, wife of the injured Vinod Kumar Mishra. The case of the prosecution as appearing from the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2, in brief, is that Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra with his family members was living separate from his brother Pramod Kumar Mishra and parents Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Smt. Durga Devi. It is alleged that on 10.11.2005 at about 9.15 a.m., when Vinod Kumar Mishra was present in his madha near his house, the accused Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Smt. Durga Devi, Pramod Kumar Mishra and his wife Smt. Kanchan Devi Mishra came there and began to assault the complainant and her husband Vinod Kumar Mishra hurling filthy abuses to them. Smt. Durga Devi brought a firearm from her house and handed over the same to Pramod Kumar Mishra, who on the exhortation of Smt. Kanchan Devi, Rajendra Prasad and Smt. Durga Devi fired shot on Vinod Kumar Mishra, due to which he sustained injuries and fell down there. On hearing the hue and cry, many people from neighbourhod came there and saw the incident.

(3.) AFTER investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants-accused. On the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial, charge under Sections 307/323 both read with Section 34 and 504, I.P.C. was framed against the appellants-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.