LALIT JATAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was arrested on 16.7.2000. He was released on bail in trial Court on 21.1.2001. He was sent to jail on 3.10.2002 on conviction and is in jail since then. However, he has not deposited the fine amount.

(2.) AS per FIR (Ex. P/15), co -accused Gautam with three of his companions, all armed with knives, had been to the house of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1). Co -accused Gautam stabbed Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) causing an injury in his abdomen. Clearly the appellant was not named in FIR. In evidence, Dharmendra Singh (PW 1), Surendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 5) have claimed that the appellant had stabbed Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) injuring him in chest. Smt. Krishna Bai Raghuvanshi (PW 2), mother of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) had merely named the co -accused persons but she did not name the appellant. She was declared hostile and cross -examined by the Public Prosecutor and confronted with her previous statement 'A' to 'A' part of Ex. P -1 was denied by her. It is noteworthy that Doctor P.K. Mishra (PW 4) medically examined Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) and noted the following injury on his person vide Ex. P -3 :

(3.) YADUVEER Singh Tomar (PW 12), ASI has recovered a knife which was spring -operated, blade of which was 8 digits and its handle was 9 digits. It was recovered from the house of appellant. Certainly the carriage of such a knife in public place might have amounted to an offence u/s 25(lb)(b) of the Act, but recovery of such knife from the house of the appellant does not amount to such an offence. As the presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence on spot has not been proved, this cannot also be held that he was having this knife at the time of occurrence. As such, on that basis also the appellant could not be convicted for the said offence. Thus, the appeal on merits deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. No fine amount is paid.