(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of the respondents out of whom respondent No. 1 Umesh was charged for committing offences punishable under sections 120B, 302 and 307 of IPC as well as 25/27 of the Arms Act, while each of the others was charged for committing offences punishable under sections 120B, 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that complainant Keshav (PW 8) had a piece of agricultural land in village Ladampura of PS Mehgaon, district Bhind. Adjacent to his field was the field of one Mahavir. Respondent No. 1 Umesh and respondent No.4 Rajeev both were the sons of that Mahavir while respondent No.2 and respondent No.5, namely, Brijesh and Ramsewak were sons of a cousin of Mahavir. On 13.10.1986 the respondent No.1 Umesh, while ploughing the field of his father, had demolished the boundary structure (med) in between his and the field of complainant Keshav (PW 8). Therefore, Keshav (PW 8) referred the matter for settlement to panchas Asharam (PW 5) and Baburam (PW 6). On his call, both these panchas, namely, Asharam and Baburam on14.10.1986, early in the morning went to the disputed site. After seeing the place, they put some mud erecting the boundary structure. Thereupon, respondent No.1 Umesh further asked for erection of marks (khunta) on its either side. Thereupon, complainant Keshav (PW 8) objected saying that if some such structure like khunta is put then he would not be able to plough his field. Thereafter, the complainant Keshav (PW 8) also re -spread the mud put by the panchas. Then the respondent as well as Mahavir, who were all present at the spot, started hurling abuses. The complainant Keshav was accompanied by one Suratram (PW 11) and Virendra Kumar (PW 7). By the time, the respondents started hurling abuses, one Soprasad (PW 9) also reached the place. The complainant in reply too hurled abuses. Thereupon, Mahavir asked the respondent No. 1 Umesh to lift his gun and kill the complainant, etc. The respondents Brijesh, Rajeev and Ramsewak also exhorted Umesh to kill at the earliest. Thereupon, respondent Umesh went to his nearby house to fetch the gun. From his house he took the gun belonging to his father Mahavir and came out. By that time, complainant Keshav (PW 8) etc. had also gone towards their house and had taken shelter. As respondent Umesh armed with a gun came out of his house, Omprakash (PW 10), hearing sounds, asked his wife Savitri, hereinafter referred as the deceased to go out and see what has happened. Therefore, Savitri came out of her house and seeing the respondent Umesh with the gun, requested him not to fire. But the respondent Umesh, instead of accepting her request, fired a gun shot at her itself. She fell down and succumbed to the injuries caused to her by the gun shot. Thereafter, respondent Umesh went back to his house and after climbing to the roof, fired few more shots from there but they did not hit anyone. Meanwhile, the complainant Keshav (PW 8) managed to escape from there and went to Barohi and thereafter from there to Mehgaon police station and lodged the first information report, Ex. P -8. Accordingly, the Investigation Officer M.S. Chauhan (PW 13) reached the spot and prepared the spot map Ex. P -9 and referred the body of the deceased Savitri for autopsy. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW 1). He found an entry wound without any charring or tattooing on the chest, left of mid clavicular line and an exit wound on the back but lower in level than the entry wound. After completing investigation, a charge -sheet was filed by PS Mehgaon against all the four respondents as well as Mahavir.
(3.) AGGLIEVED by the said Judgment dated 18.7.1988 of the learned trial Court, this appeal has been preferred by the State on the grounds that the findings of the learned trial Court were perverse and that it has erred in appreciating the evidence. Out of the five accused, No. 3 -Mahavir died during the pendency of this appeal and therefore his name has been deleted from the array of respondents.