RAKESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2nd December, 1998 passed by Additional Session Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 131/1994 convicting the appellant under sections 307 IPC, 25 (1) and 27 (2) of Indian Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred only), RI for 5 years and RI for 7 years respectively, on each count. Sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in nut shell is that on 12.2.1994 Station Officer, Bhonti namely J.R. Jumnani received information that dacoit Raghuveer Yadav and his associates were hiding near a well situated between village Parma and Kundalpur. On this information when searching operation was done, bandits disappeared under the spell of darkness at the night. On 13.2.1994 an information was received that one bandit was still hiding there, then police force along with some people of village reached at the spot and put a seize. It is said that bandit on seeing the police party fired Katta over the police party though no body was injured. He was apprehended at the spot then he disclosed his name to police. 315 Bore Katta and a cartridge was seized from his possession. After arrest he was brought to police Station. Report of the incident was lodged by Station Officer, Bhonti, whereupon a case under section 336 IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act was registered. After obtaining the requisite sanction from the District Magistrate and further requisite investigation the charge sheet was filed before the Court and the case was committed for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges under section 307 IPC, sections 25 (1) (B) and 27 of Arms Act. Accused abjured guilt and pleaded false implication.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri B.M. Dwivedi submitted that the learned trial Court has mis-appreciated the prosecution evidence. Independent witnesses, except Saligram have not supported the prosecution story before the Court. He also submitted that in the circumstances of the case no offence under section 307 IPC is made out. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent-State Shri D.S. Chouhan, P.L. submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses adduced before the Court the offences have been amply proved. He submitted that the testimony of the police officers cannot be disbelieved merely because the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. I have heard the counsel of both sides and perused the evidence on record. PW 1 Raghuveer Singh Head Constable has deposed that when he along with police force and other witnesses had reached near the well of Parma, he had seen that the accused was hiding in a Nala, when Station Officer warned him then he tried to run away and fired a shot by Katta towards them, but he was surrounded and was caught at the spot. He also stated that a 315 Bore Katta and an empty cartridge was also seized from the possession of the appellant at the spot. The same version has been given by PW 4 Ram Prakesh Tiwari Head Constable, PW 8 Prakesh Chand Tiwari, ASI and PW 9 J.R. Jumnani. The public witnesses accompanying the police force namely PW 2 Sindhua, PW 3 Durga, PW 5 Asharam and PW 6 Giran did not support the prosecution case at the trial and another public witness Saligram PW 7 stated that Station Officer had sent him and Giran at the well to see whether bandits were present there. When he went near the well then accused enquired as to whether anybody else was with him and pointed Katta towards him. He further stated that when he reached near them, then accused fired Katta at him and the pellet of the shot hit him on his forehead. Accused was then apprehended by him and the police force. He has also stated that a Katta and two or three live cartridges were seized from his possession. The learned trial Court has disbelieved this witness, since he had given diffrent version then that given by other witnesses.