ASHISH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr. PC against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-11-2000 passed by IVth additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (M. P.) in S. T. No. 188/99, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) THE factual aspect of the case is that on 12-5-99, at Police Station, mehgaon, Shivsharan Singh Chauhan (P. W. 6) came to the police station along with deceased Anil Kumar Singh and lodged a report which is Exh. P-6. According to the report, 'barat party' of Parbal Pratap Singh came to the residence of Ranveer Singh Bhadoriya at village Mungaoli. Anil Kumar Singh and appellant Ashish Kumar Tiwari were also came along with 'barat party'. When 'tika ceremony' was going on, appellant fired rash and negligently from a 12 bore gun by which the bullet hit at the stomach of the deceased Anil Kumar singh and he sustained injury and fell down on the ground. On receiving the First information Report, a case under Section 336 of IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Mehgaon but later on it was converted to Section 304 of IPC. The deceased Anil Kumar Singh was referred to J. A. Hospital, gwalior where he died. Charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court initially framed the charges against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act on 21-9-99. On 27-11-2000, the alternative charge under Section 304-A of IPC was framed against the appellant and the same was denied by him. The learned trial Court after considering the material on record, convicted the appellant under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced accordingly as stated in above para one.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has committed error by framing the charge alternatively under Section 304-A of IPC on 27-11-2000 when the case was closed for final arguments. Judgment was delivered on the same set of evidence which was produced in connection with earlier charges under Section 302 of IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the arms Act. No additional evidence has been adduced by the prosecution and the learned Trial Court pronounced the judgment on the next day i. e. , on 28-11-2000. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that there should be separate charge for distinct offence and shall be tried separately as per Section 218 of Cr. PC. Section 218 of Cr. PC reads as follows:-