LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-344

POORANLAL RAJAK Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On July 24, 2012
POORANLAL RAJAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.1.1997 passed by the 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.483/1991, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294 & 307 of IPC and sentenced for one month S.I., one month R.I. and for three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, failing which R.I. for three months in addition.

(2.) Prosecution's case in short is that on 8.3.1989, the victim Reva Prasad (PW-1) was plying a rickshaw in the city of Jabalpur and taking some passengers to Surtalai, then at about 2:00 p.m. in the noon, near Shankar Nagar, the appellant met him and assaulted the victim Reva Prasad due to his previous talks took alongwith brother-in-law of the appellant. He abused the victim with obscene words and restrained him wrongfully. He assaulted the victim by a knife in his abdomen and also on the left thigh. The victim was taken to the Gohalpur Police Station, where he lodged an FIR Ex.P/1. Thereafter, he was sent to the Hospital for his medico legal examination and treatment. Duty doctor at Victoria Hospital found him two injuries and looking to the seriousness of the victim, he was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur. The Surgical Specialist of the Medical College, Jabalpur found that the victim sustained a stab injury on his abdomen and therefore, he was operated and his internal injury was repaired. A haemorrhage was also found in that injury, whereas another stab wound was found on his left thigh. The Surgical Specialist found that the injury of the abdomen was dangers to the life. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but he has submitted that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced in the case.