STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SURALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Burhanpur, District Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.76/1991.

(2.) In the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 307 of the IPC with the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that respondent Surla assaulted the complainant Shankar with an arrow, which was a sharp weapon and caused grievous injury with intention to kill him.

(3.) Learned trial Court found that there is no eyewitness except the complainant Shankar, who corroborated the prosecution story. Some important witnesses namely Ditabai (PW-4) daughter of the complainant and her husband Lal Singh (PW-5) were indicated by the complainant as eyewitnesses but their names have not been narrated as witnesses in the FIR, hence their presence is not found reliable on the spot. The testimony of the complainant itself contradictory with the FIR Ex.P/1. There were so many persons resided, where the incident took place when the complainant Shankar screamed but nobody came to the spot to take him to the Police Station. At the time of incident, Kan Singh was present on the spot but he died. Learned trial Court has also found that seizure memo Ex.P/12 has not been proved by the prosecution.