OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.01.2019 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial 355 of 2015 whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The injured is Ramkumar Sahadeo Gupta (PW-4). The incident occurred on 20.04.2015 at 08:00 p.m. The version of the injured as is discernible from his statement which was recorded by the police at Dande Hospital, Nagpur (Exh.14) is that he is dealing in real estate and hails from a place near Allahabad. One Lallu Gupta, who also belongs to the same place, purchased one plot from the injured. Certain disputes arose and the injured returned the money to Lallu Gupta. The injured had gone to meet his friend one Rajendraprasad Hiralal Gupta (PW-3), who is a fruit vendor at Dattawadi, Nagpur. The injured was talking with Rajendraprasad Gupta. Lallu Gupta came from behind, threw chilly powder in the eyes of the injured and with a knife used to cut watermelon inflicted blows on the neck of the injured and fled. The brother of one Chandu admitted the injured at Dande Hospital, Nagpur.

(3.) On the basis of the statement Exh.14, printed first information report Exh.33 was recorded and offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Lallu Gupta. Investigation ensued. The injury certificate Exh.32 was collected, spot was inspected and panchanama drawn (Exh.34), the statements of witnesses were recorded, pursuant to statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Exh.37) one knife, clothes and box containing chilly powder were recovered from the house of the accused and seized vide seizure panchanama Exh.38. After the seizure of the knife the supplementary statement of the injured was recorded since the complainant identified the knife seized as the same weapon used in the commission of the offence. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and upon completion of the investigation final report was submitted in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the case to the Sessions Court.