STATE OF M P Vs. PURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is State appeal, filed under Section 378 Cr. P. C. against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Trial no. 109/84 for the offences under Sections 147,148,324,307/149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 28. 2. 1995.

(2.) AS per prosecution story, complainant matadin had taken loan of Rs. 100 and grams weighing 6 Paceri (30 Kg.) from jagannath Rawat. Jagannath Rawat used to make demand from the complainant. Matadin was not in a position to return back the loan, therefore, he was praying for pardon and thereafter Matadin left the village due to fear of Jagannath and went to banmore, A month before 13. 11. 1983 he came back to village Runipur. At about 4. 00 p. m. Jagannath carrying, muzzle loaded gun, Puran carrying barchi, harpal (deceased) carrying lathi, Heera (deceased)carrying lathi and Rajaram carrying farsa in their hand came and demanded money and grams from Matadin. Matadin refused to give. At the same time, Tularam and soneram, brothers of Matadin came there. Tularam said that he will arrange the money and grams and return back. On this jagannath fired on Tularam by his muzzle loaded gun, which hit the nose and passed through. At the same time, Puran caused injury to Tularam by Barchi in the palm of left hand and Rajaram caused farsa injury to Soneram in his head. Harpal caused injury to Matadin by lathi in his right shoulder. . Heera also caused injury to Matadin by lathi in his chest. Ramcharan and Murari came on spot for their help. Thereafter, matadin lodged report at Police Station jora. Crime was registered, Matadin was referred for medical examination, matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed.

(3.) IN the trial, the trial Court found that in the same incident Harpal died, jagannath and Puran received injuries and for that a criminal case has been registered against Matadin and his brothers Tularam, soneram, Banwari, Feran and Shobharam. From the accused side another Matadin also received injuries from hand grand but from the prosecution case Matadin (PW2), tularam (PW3) and Soneram (PW4) have not explained injuries received by the accused persons. On the contrary, all the aforesaid three witnesses, who are the members of one family and having inimical relations with the respondents accused, have deposed that they have not seen the injuries on the body of the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed reliance on the prosecution evidence on the ground that the evidence of all the three witnesses is not corroborated by any other independent evidence, they have suppressed the material facts of the incident and have not explained the injuries of the respondents accused persons, thus, acquitted the respondents against which, the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave.