LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-43

GHASI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On October 30, 2017
Ghasi Thakur Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.7.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Damoh in S.T. No. 203/2001, whereby the appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- as well as for offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.5.2001 while the deceased Buddhu and his wife Kamal Rani (P.W.3) were sitting under the tree in their village alongwith Hallu (P.W.4), Gulzar (P.W.7), Rehmat Shah (P.W.8), Shankar (P.W.10), Halku (P.W.11), Durjan (P.W.15) and others, the accused/appellant picked up a fight with the deceased Buddhu in respect of sale of his land to a third person and thereafter, ran into his house which was nearby and returned armed with a muzzle loading single barrel unlicenced country-made gun and shot the deceased Buddhu as a result of which the deceased Buddhu suffered injuries on his chest and subsequently succumbed to the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had infact caught the deceased Buddhu molesting his wife and therefore, on account of this grave and sudden provocation, snatched up the gun and shot the deceased Buddhu. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the statement of the accused, recorded before the Court below to this effect and submitted that in such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, by the Court below is misplaced and misconceived as the act of the appellant infact falls under the exceptions prescribed under Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC and therefore, the impugned conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside.