AMDOO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal of the accused Amdoo alias Sheikh Ahmad and Dev kumar, both of whom, on their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., have been sentenced to three years RI.

(2.) According to the prosecution, at about 10 p.m. on 17-9-1982, complainant-cum-victim Jodu Gopal was going in Darmus rickshaw from Khokhopara to Lakhenagar Chowk. On the way, both the appellants-accused were stated to have stopped the rickshaw and to have threatened the complainant with his life. The appellant-accused Dev Kumar, who was armed with a knife, made repeated concerted assaults on the complainant, resulting in injuries in the abdominal region and also on the chest region. After the incident, the appellants-accused fled away. Certain witnesses had seen the incident. They took the complainant to the police station where the complainant lodged the report. The complainant was then taken to the hospital where his injuries were got (sic) examined. Weapons of assault were subsequently seized, consequent to the memorandum of discovery of the respective accused persons. After due investigation, the appellants-accused were put up for trial. Both abjured the guilt. It was contended that the complainant was in a drunken state at the relevant time. He by nature was a quarrelsome person and the hour of the incident being a dark night, the complainant might well have been the victim of assault by some other culprits who may have enmity with him. The appellants-accused claimed themselves to be the victims of mistaken identity. The Trial Court disbelieved the defence stand. Relying on the prosecution evidence of the complainant and certain eye-witnesses, corroborated by the prompt FIR and the identification proceedings and further supported by the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, their present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants accused has urged that from the evidence on record itself, the identity of the appellants accused as actual culprits, is doubtful in face of mutual contradictions on material points. The principal point urged is that the offence, at worst, was under Section 324 IPC and in no case under Section 307 IPC. Finally, it has been urged that both the appellants-accused have already remained in jail for a little more than seven months; and as such, considering the young age of these appellants-accused, they deserve leniency in the manner of sentence.