CHINGA ALIAS GYARSI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants/accused under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 11.01.1999, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen, in ST No.22/1997, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and appellants No.2 and 3 have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years, with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.1996 at about 6 O' clock in the evening in village Jamgarh the complainant Jugraj was going to the house of Shiv Narayan Patel, when he came in front of house of Halke Rai, the appellants/accused Brij Lal and Bhav Singh obstructed and caught hold of him and appellant Chhinga assaulted him by inflicting several injuries on his back by knife in order to kill him. Appellant Brij Lal had also assaulted him by lathi on his head. Witness Halke came there and saved the complainant from the appellant and brought him to the house of Shiv Narayan Patel. Thereafter complainant was brought to Police Station Bareli where he lodged FIR (Ex.P/1). Police registered the offence and send him for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Bareli. Complainant remained admitted for one day and thereafter referred to Medical College, Bhopal. During investigation police prepared spot map and seized the lathi and knife on memorandum of accused Brij Lal and Chhinga respectively. The statement of witnesses were recorded and after due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court.

(3.) The trial Court has framed the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 of IPC on appellant Chhinga and under Section 307/34 of IPC on appellants Brij Lal and Bhav Singh. Accused persons abjured guilt. During trial, prosecution adduced nine witnesses in its support whereas appellant and other co-accused persons did not give any evidence in defence.