LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-171

LALIT KISHORE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On September 28, 2012
LALIT KISHORE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.174/95, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment, he was to undergo for six months' R.I. in addition.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short is that, on 14.8.1994 at about 7:30 p.m. in the evening, the complainant Rohini Prasad (PW-8) was going from Kothi to his house situated at village Ranehi (Police Station Kothi, District Satna). He was acc parking his vehicle and the complainant and other witnesses were talking to each other at the spot, in the meantime the appellant alongwith his brother Khemchand appeared at the spot and fired from a gun. Some pellets struck in the right hand of the complainant. THEreafter, the appellant and his brother ran away from the spot. THE complainant was taken to the Police Station, Kothi, where he lodged an FIR Ex.P/10 (Ex.P/15 in S.T.No.33/95). He was directed for his medico legal examination and treatment to Primary Health Centre, Kothi. Dr. A.K. Trivedi (PW-1) after examining the complainant Rohini Prasad, gave his report Ex.P/1. He found four lacerated wounds on the right forearm of the complainant and in 4th wounds, he found a pellet and removed that pellet also. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Satna, who committed the case to the Sessions Court but the appellant was absconding and therefore, the entire trial was proceeded against the accused Khemchand. Vide judgment dated 27.1.1995, the accused Khemchand was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Satna from all the charges levelled against him. THEreafter, in November 1995, a supplementary charge sheet was filed and trial was initiated before the Sessions Court against the appellant.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.