LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-330

BHAGWAT YADAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On July 20, 2012
Bhagwat Yadava Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.1.1997 passed by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.19/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- failing in depositing the fine amount, three months S.I. in addition.

(2.) Prosecution's case in short is that on 30.10.1992 at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening, the victim Tulsidas was providing some grass to his cattles at village Naddoura, Police Station, Rajnagar, then the appellant came with a stick and assaulted the victim Tulsidas by the stick. The appellant was accompanied by one Balmik, who also participated in the quarrel. The appellant assaulted the victim Tulidas by a Farsa also. The victim took to the Police Station, Khajuraho, where he lodged an FIR Ex.P/4. Thereafter, he was sent to the hospital for his medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. Chourasiya (PW-8) examined the victim Tulsidas and gave a report Ex.P/8. He found as many as seven injuries to the victim caused on the left frontal region, right parietal region, left parietal region, near right eyebrow, right cheek, right hand and right wrist. The victim Tulsidas was referred for his x-ray examination and it was found that a fracture of frontoparietal bone on left side was caused. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused Balmik for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC before the C.J.M. Chhatarpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea. The defence witnesses namely Harishchandra (DW-1) & Ashok Kumar (DW-2) were examined for the co-accused Bali @ Balmik but no defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.