LAWS(MPH)-2013-6-100

SHAKIR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On June 25, 2013
SHAKIR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by : M.C. Garg, J. These appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Shajapur delivered in Sessions Case No.81/2008 in a case instituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh against appellants Rajjab Ali, Shakir, Abid Khan, Sitaram, Dharmendra Singh and Inqalab in relation to the incident which was held on 28.11.2007 at about 5:10 pm near jungle of Kupasa where, Rajjab Ali, Shakir, Abid Khan, Sitaram, Dharmendra Singh and Inqalab by using fire arms and with intention to create an unlawful assembly, they came towards Biramsingh, who was a public servant. With a view to terrorise him, they fired with katta and in this manner, caused grievous injuries to Biramsingh.

(2.) THE intention in causing injuries was such that if, the death of Biramsingh would have taken place, then the appellants would have been guilty of offence under section 148, 149, 353/149 and 307/149 of IPC. This incident was subsequent to an incident which occurred on the same day and which was caused by the appellants only when they rob Manoj and murdered the driver of his vehicle. Ramlal with fire arms and looted about Rs. 15,00,000/ -. A separate case being case No.80/2008 has been registered. In short, it is the 1 case of the prosecution that: - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_100_LAWS(MPH)6_2013.jpg</IMG>

(3.) THE appellants / accused persons were arrested. The injuries were medically examined. Other steps towards investigation also taken and from the complainant, one 303 Bore (Rifle) and one 303 bore (fired kartoos) was also seized and challan after investigation was put up before the JMFC, Sarangpur and then committed to Sessions Judge, Shajapur. After the prosecution recorded statement of the appellants were also recorded under section 313 of Cr.RC. in which they take general defence of the false implication, after only examining Dharmendra as witness. The Appellate Court had framed the following points for consideration: - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_100_LAWS(MPH)6_201301.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_100_LAWS(MPH)6_20131.jpg</IMG>