VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr.A.No.348/1999 and Cr.A.No.406/1999. Both these appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved from the judgment of conviction dated 19-07-1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda District Guna in S.T.No.338/1997 whereby appellants of both the appeals have been convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ) and sentenced to undergo one year's RI with fine of Rs.500/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and seven years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-respectively to each appellant with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01-11-1996 at about 12:00 pm Vikram Singh, Kallu alias Balwant and Ballu alias Dharmendra came on a tractor and started cultivating the Med and field of Roop Singh and Ramcharan which was tried to be stopped by Roop Singh (since deceased) and Mahesh Kumar (injured). On that, Vikram Singh told Ballu alias Dharmendra to bring out the weapons from house, in turn Ballu went to the house and returned armed with Katta and Farsa along with other accused persons namely, Kaptan Singh, Gajendra Singh, Madho Singh and Sheshnarayan. Thereafter all the accused persons surrounded Roop Singh, Vikram Singh fired at the left side of neck of Roop Singh and Ballu had caused Farsa blow over the left leg of Roop Singh due to which Roop Singh fell down and died on the spot. It has been further alleged that when Mahesh Kumar (injured) tried to rescue Roop Singh, Ballu has also caused Farsa blow over his head. On arrival of police, Dehati Nalish (Ex-P/1) was registered by police on the information of Mahesh and thereafter FIR (Ex-P/23) has been registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution against the appellants.

(3.) During trial, accused/appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of IPC and contended that they had been falsely implicated.