STATE OF M P Vs. AMOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 having been aggrieved by the Judgment dated 27 th March 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 59/91 by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Bhind (M.P.) acquitting thereby the respondentsaccused of the charges framed under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of I.P.C. read with Section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act.

(2.) It is alleged that on 13/4/90, brother of complainant Raghuraj Singh and father Lakhan Singh were injured by accused Sahab Singh, Amol Singh, Budha Singh and Sanjeev Singh by means of Lathis and Ballam for which the injured were admitted to the Govt. hospital. On the date of incident, I.e., on 19 th April, 90 at around 10-30 o' clock, all the accused opened fire towards Raghuraj Singh and others, who were returning from the Govt. Hospital, Bhind after visiting Bharat Singh and Lakhan Singh, who got injured in the previous incident by Sahab Singh and others. It is alleged that Shishupal Singh was behind the complainant and other witnesses, so the bullet fired by accused Sahab Singh hit Shishupal Singh who received severe injuries on his body and died on the spot. It is stated that Dharm Singh was seriously injured due to firing made by the accused. The incident was narrated by the complainant to Dau Komal Singh at his residence. Then, he reached the police Station Pawai and lodged the FIR against the accused. The Marg report was also written. The inquiry in the Marg case and the investigation commenced. The injured was sent for treatment to the Government Hospital and dead body of the deceased was sent to postmortem. Statements of the eye witnesses were recorded. After arrest of the accused, the fire arms used in incident were seized. The articles relating to the crime were seized and the fire arms used in the incidents by the accused were sent to the Director State Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of the reports from Expert, charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, having the jurisdiction. On committal, the accused were tried for the offence above. During trial, the accused Sahab Singh expired. After trial, the remaining accused were acquitted of the offence, as mentioned above, hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State is that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge is against the facts, evidence adduced and the law applicable to the present case. It is submitted that the ocular evidence fully supported the prosecution story but the learned trial court erred in discarding the prosecution witnesses. It is argued that the villagers were terrorized and, therefore, no independent witness could come forward for recording his statement before the Investigating Agency. The trial Judge erred in valuing the evidence as adduced and committed an illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, respondents-accused be convicted for committing murder of Shishupal and for attempt to commit murder of Raghuraj Singh and Dharam Singh and appropriate sentence be awarded to them as per law.