BALLU & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the accused/appellants is directed against a Judgment dated 17 th May 2011, rendered in Sessions Trial No. 31/2010 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.), convicting thereby all the appellants for commission of an offence punishable under Section 336 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to the period of undergone imprisonment suffered by them, respectively, during trial with imposition of fine of Rs.150/- on accused Ramveer, who was directed to suffer fifteen days' additional rigorous imprisonment in the event of default to pay.

(2.) Facts, in short, for the decision of this appeal are that on 31 st July 2009 at about 10 o' clock at the agricultural field of Badri Singh, situated in village Pahari Tikari, Police Station Rithorkalan, all the accused came and started ploughing the field belonging to Badri Singh, uncle of the complainant Pulandar Singh Gurjar. The complainant was grazing his cattle at the nearby side. When he tried to stop the accused from ploughing the field of his uncle, all the accused made firings from their licensed guns. The complainant somehow escaped but was chased by the accused persons. Then, accused Layak Singh opened fire at him which hit his right knee. The other accused also fired in the air. On his cry, the villagers reached on the spot to rescue him and seeing them, the accused fled away. The complainant alongwith Lotan Singh and Raghuveer went to the police station Rithorkalan and lodged the FIR against the accused, which was registered at Crime No.94/09 for commission of offence under Sections 307, 294, 506 (part-II)/34 and 336 of I.P.C. The injured was medically examined. The investigation was put in motion. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. On committal, sessions trial was commenced. After trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants is that all eye-witnesses after compromise turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution version to the effect that accused Layak Singh caused injury on right knee of the complainant and others opened fire in the air endangering to life or personal safety of the complainant and his family members. It is submitted that the doctor, who examined the injured did not appear before the trial court and therefore the injury caused to injured-complainant Pulandar Singh could not be proved. The Investigating Officer was also not examined before the trial court by the prosecution. Eventually, the prosecution story could not be proved against the accused/appellants. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the judgment of conviction and sentence is against the evidence and the law applicable to the case. It is, therefore, prayed that by setting aside the conviction and sentence, the present appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.