PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRIAL Court has convicted appellant Purushottam under section 307 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Trial Court had also convicted appellants Uttama and Gundi under sections 307/34 and sentenced them to undergo 10 years RI. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants Uttama and Gundi both have expired, therefore, their names have been deleted from the memo of appeal and now the only appeal of appellant Purushttam remains for consideration.

(2.) AS per prosecution story, on 27.8.1982 in the morning injured Ayodhya Singh (PW 1) was ploughing his field alongwith his uncle Ramkishan (PW 7). At the same time, all the three appellants came there from the side of Baksipura and stood on the border of the field of Harinarayan. While ploughing the field, when the back portion of Ayodhya Singh came towards the appellants, appellant Purushottam fired on him by 'Katta'. Ayodhya Singh received fire arm injury on his back and he fell down on the border of the field. When Ramkishan (PW 7) objected, 'Katta' was shown to him also and appellant Uttama exhorted Gundhi - 'Maar Sale Ko'. Thereafter, Ayodhya Singh was taken to police Station. FIR was lodged. He was also referred for medical examination. Matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri Padam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has been implicated falsely and no case is made out against him and alternatively he submitted that the incident took place in the year 1982, the appellant is facing trial since last 23 years and uptil now he has also suffered jail sentence of more than eighteen months. It is a case of single fire. He has further submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and both the parties have filed a joint application before this Court for recording the compromise between them and thereafter placing reliance on the case of Munna alias Vijay Kant v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 3 SCC 380] he prayed that the conviction of the appellant be maintained and he be released on undergone jail sentence. In reply Shri C.S. Dixit, learned public prosecutor for respondent- State submitted that the relations between the parties are inimical and after his release at any time any untoward incident may happen between the parties. From the record he has pointed out that there is enmity between the parties and before this incident earlier also there was quarrel between the parties and some persons were murdered from both the sides. Criminal proceedings were initiated and some of the witnesses were accused persons in that criminal case.