STATE OF M P Vs. RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th February, 1986, passed in Special Case No. 147/84, by Special Judge, Bhind, thereby, acquitting respondents/accused persons from charge u/s 147, 148, 307, 392, and 324 read with section 149 of IPC and section 25 (1)(A) of Arms Act, the state, has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for conviction of respondents in aforesaid offence.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution of the respondents in brief are that on 11.6.1984, the complainant Baturi (PW 13), when getting the earth filled up outside his gauda, accused Murari, Savdhan, Ramsiya, Rambabu, Asharfi, Pramod and Munna came there and stopped him from filling the earth claiming the place of their own. Baturi also insisted saying that he is in possession of that place. This caused wordy quarrel between them. On that juncture, Ramsanehi (PW4) invcrvened. Savdhan and Murari armed with Katta, Ramsiya with Ballam, Pramod with Katla and Rambabu, Munna and Asharfi with lathis surrounded Ramsanehi and started assaulting. Rambabu exhorted his son Murari to kill him with Katta. Murari and Savdhan who were armed with Katta, fired upon him, however, he narrowly escaped. When Baturi intervened he was also assaulted by the accused persons. Vijay son of Ramsanehi, rushed to save them, armed with licenced gun, however, accused persons snatched the arm and ran away after firing in the air. Baturi lodged first information report, (Ex. P/7A), at Police Station Mehgaon and injured were referred for medical examination. In medical examination of Ramsanehi, no fire arm injury was found on his body.

(3.) THE learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has contended before us that none of the accused has received any injury in the incident, in the circumstances, the question of right of self defence, does not arise. It has also been argued that, there is no evidence to show that the place where the incident took place, belongs to any of the accused persons. The learned counsel for the respondents on the otherhand has supported the findings of the trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record.