CHHOTE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.7.1995 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 192/92, convicting the appellants Chhote and Phoolsingh for the offence under section 324, IPC and the accused/appellant Bhagwandas for the offence under section 324/34, IPC and sentencing all of them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus : Complainant Prakash was the resident of village - 'Mehtoli -Ka -Pahad'. In the preceding night of 19.11.1991 accused/appellant Chhote, after consuming liquor, had abused Prakash. At that time Prakash was not there and when he reached, Chimman Singh (PW 6) told him all about that, then he went to village 'Mehtoli -Ka -Pahad' to meet the accused/appellant Chhote. All the three accused/appellants who are real brothers met him and when Prakash asked Chhote as to why he had abused him then some wordy quarrel took place. The accused/appellant Phoolsingh hit Prakash from the blunt side of the axe on his back, accused/appellant Chhote inflicted Bhala injury near his ear and accused/appellant Bhagwandas inflicted lathi injuries on his person.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Morena, framed charges for the offence under sections 307/34 and 323/34, IPC against the accused/appellant Chhote; accused/appellants Phoolsingh and Bhagwandas were also charged for the offence under sections 307/34 and 307, IPC respectively. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and closed its case. After careful scrutiny of the statement of the prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that no offence under section 307, IPC, or for that matter under section 307/34, IPC, was made out against the accused/appellants. However, it found that the offence under section 324, IPC was proved against Chhotelal and Phoolsingh while offence under section 324/34, IPC was found proved against accused/appellant Bhagwandas. They were, therefore, convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence, this appeal.