SHANKAR KHATIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.108/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.100/-; with default sentence as stipulated in the judgment.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 18.11.2010 at about 10:25 O'clock in the night the complainant Kishore Khatik had lodged a report in the Police Station Mandideep, District Raisen, against the appellant / accused to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. on 18.11.2010 at about 10 pm he along with his brother was sitting in the mutton shop situated behind graveyard and servant Rinku was also working there. One customer came to take mutton in the shop of the complainant then appellant / accused abused. Bhagwan Singh, brother of the complainant, tried to convince the appellant / accused but the appellant / accused assaulted Bhagwan Singh on his neck with Chhura, due to which, Bhagwan Singh fell on the ground and blood oozed out. Thereafter, the complainant and the customer took the injured to hospital, from where, the injured was referred to Bhopal. On the basis of the aforesaid report, crime no. 485/10 was registered at the police station Mandideep, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant / accused. However, after investigation was over, a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 294 of the IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed against the appellant / accused before the JMFC concerned who on its turn committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) The learned trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 294, 307 of the IPC and also under Sections 25 (1-Kha) (kha) and 27 (1) of the Arms Act against the appellant. However, the appellant / accused abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. He also pleaded that he was falsely implicated due to business rivalry.