RAJEEV LOCHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28-7-2009 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No. 189/2005 whereby each one of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the jail sentences shall run concurrently and also that in case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 1000/- shall be paid to each one of the injured persons named below as compensation - Convicted under Section Sentenced to 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 7 years and (for attempting murder of to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Gaurishankar) in default to suffer R. I. for 6 months, 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 7 years and to pay (for attempting muder of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to Rishikesh) suffer R. 1. for 6 months. 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 6 months. (for sharing a common intention in causing injuries to Ruchita)

(2.) IN the light of the guideline laid down in Nathi Lal v. State of U. P., 1990 (Supp) SCC 145, learned trial Judge, on the same day, delivered judgment in counter-case numbered as S. T. No. 263/2007. IN that case, cognizance of the offence under Section 323 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. for causing injuries to appellant No. 1 Rajeev Lochan (hereinafter referred to as 'A1'), his son Mukesh and appellant No. 2 Rajendra (for short 'A2') was taken upon the complaint made by Al. By that judgment, Gaurishankar, Rishikesh, Ruchita and Shivmurti Prasad (examined as PW9, PW10, PW2 and PW1 respectively in this case), were acquitted of the offences. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal.

(3.) THE prosecution sought to prove the charges by producing as many as 13 witnesses including the injured persons and the medical experts. As pointed out already, the defence examined Mukesh and Satish, the co- accused, to establish the plea of private defence. On a critical appraisal of the entire evidence, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, concluded that the charges against the appellants were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.