SHRILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants along with others were tried by the learned trial Court u/S. 148, 333/149 IPC. The learned Court convicted the appellants u/S. 148, 333/149 IPC. They were sentenced to 1 year R.I. each u/S. 148 IPC and 3 years R.I. each u/S. 333/149 IPC. Feeling aggrieved they have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the appeal are that on 23.7.87 PW 4 Laxminarain Sharma who was then Vanpal, Bamori Range and PW 5 Vishnucharan Khare, Forest Guard, had gone to village Tuiakheda to serve notices on the residents of that village with respect to their unauthorised occupation over the forest land 1ney reached there at about 9 a.m. PW 1 Babulal and PW 2 Mahavirsingh, who were Chowkidars, were sent by him to call the persons to whom notices were to be served. He along with Vishnucharan sat under a Mahua tree in Mohalla Kirkar. Accused Shrilal, Bhagchand, Onkar, Rambux, Harishchandra, Uda, Gopal and five others along with five ladies which included the wives of Shrilal, Onkar and Rambux reached there. Shrilal and Asharam were armed with Pharsa whereas Shrilal's wife had iron rod and other accused were armed with lathi. Shrilal attacked with Pharsa and his wife by iron bar which hit him on his left hand. The rest of them attacked with lathi. Rambux and Asharam attacked Vishnucharan Khare with Pharsa which hit him on leg. He also received injuries in his left thigh and left leg. He tried to run in order to save himself but the accused persons committed Maarpeet there as well. At the time of Maarpeet one Motilal was also there. On account of Maarpeet the notices could not be served. from the place of occurrence he was taken on hullock cart to Vishnupura where Darogaji met. He had given a report to him EX.P -6. PW 10, B,K, Chhari, the then On1cer -in -Charge of Fatehgarh was given written petition by Ranger Laxminarain and he prepared Dehati Nalish EX.P -18 at village Vishnupura itself. He sent the injured Vishnu Charan Khare and Laxmi Narain, vide memo EX.P -23 and 24 for medical examination. He reached the spot at village Tuiakheda and prepared site -plan EX.P -25 on the pointing out of Motilal. On 30.7.87 he arrested accused Gopal, Bhagchand Lalchand and Kapura vide memo EX.P -26. On 1.8.87 accused Asharam and Shrilal were arrested, vide memo EX.P -27. He recovered Pharsa from Shrilal vide memo EX.P -28. He recovered three notices from Laxminarain on 15.9.87 vide memo No. P -10 as well as blood -stained clothes, vide memo EX.P -2. On 26.8.87 he recovered clothes of Vishnucharan vide memo EX.P -3. He recorded statements of Laxminarain, Vishnucharan, Faridkhan Motilal and Babula1. After completing investigation charge -sheet was submitted against accused persons. All the accused persons denied the charge and alleged that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied upon documents EX.P -1 to P -28. The accused also examined one witness DW 1 Babulal son of Harichand. After considering the entire material on record and hearing parties the learned trial Court acquitted some of the accused persons but convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Hence the appea1.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the State could not render any help to the Court. It has been generally observed that the Counsel appearing for the State remains a silent spectator. On a query made by the Court, he pointed out that he is neither supplied with copy of the judgment of the trial Court nor the statements of witnesses and as such he is not in a position to render any assistance to the Court. It is rather very unfortunate. It is expected that the Counsel appearing for the State must be provided with necessary papers to assist the Court effectively. The mere physical presence of the State Counsel is of no avail.