ANGUR S/O HARINARAYAN AGED 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. AGAR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MP)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 21/11/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Shajapur in S.T. No. 391/1993 convicting the accused appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default of payment of fine they were to undergo additional three years R.I. The brief facts of the prosecution are that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.06.1993 one Kailash Chandra Rathore hired a Tractor and went to the farm of Dr. Mahendra Sharma for sowing. The tractor was driven by one Gopal. Kailash, Dr. Mahendra Sharma, Raju Sethi and Prem Mittal were jointly doing some mechanical work on tractor. All of a sudden Nathu Ghosi, Ankur Ghosi and Anjeer Ghosi and two other persons viz, Moolchand and Jagannath @ Jhandu reached there with arms such farsi, logs, dharia etc. Ankur abused and assaulted Mahendra Sharma with dharia, caused injury on his left hand and he fell down. Kailash Rathore tried to intervene but accused Nathu assaulted him by spear edged stick, as a result which, he received injuries on his head and the wound was oozing. Prem Mittal also intervened but he has also been assaulted on his head. The accused persons assaulted Dr. Mahendra Sharma also and caused injuries and thereafter the accused persons fled away from the spot. The matter was reported at Police station Agar vide Ex.P/1. All the injured persons were sent for medical examination at district hospital Agar. Dr. Khan examined injured Premchand Mittal, Kailashchandra and Dr.Mahendra Sharma and their medical reports are Ex.P/ 23, 24 & 25 respectively. Thereafter all the injured persons were sent to District hospital Ujjain for their treatment. The spot map was prepared. On completion of the investigation the accused persons were duly charged for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and put to their trial.

(2.) THE accused abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, the Trial Court on considering the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as herein above indicated. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent/State per contra submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.