KALLU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated 1-4-1983 passed by Shri R.K. Trivedi. Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1982 convicting the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to four year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Appellant Kallu was put on trial for offences under sections 307 and 392/397 I.P.C. for attempting murder of Bashiruddin (P.W. 1) and robbing him of a wrist watch on 30th September 1979 at about 4.00 p.m. at Dhanwani forest of village Gannor. The appellant and complainant Bashiruddin belong to the same village it is alleged that Bashiruddin was grazing his cattle in the forest on the date of incident when appellant Kallu approached him with a request to cut his babul tree. Since Bashiruddin agreed, both of them started walking together for the purpose. Appellant was walking behind Bashiruddin. After going some distance, the appellant is alleged to have given two successive blows on the neck of Bashiruddin by an axe and snatched his wrist, watch. Since Bashiruddin raised an alarm, Shafi (P.W. 2). Nasibuddin (P.W. 3) and Sukhial (P.W. 4) rushed to the place of incident and, therefore the appellant run away. Bashiruddin was taken to Police Station Beldi where the report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged at 8.00 P.M. Medical Examination by Dr. N.S. Mandloi (P.W. 7) revealed two incised wounds on both sides of the neck of Bashiruddin besides one abrasion on his chest and lacerated wound on the vault of the skull. After investigation, the appellant was put on trial as aforesaid. Learned Sessions Judge held that evidence of Bashiruddin (P.W. 1) was fully supported by Shafi Mohd.1 (P.W. 2) and Nasibuddin (P.W. 3) and, therefore, it was established beyond doubt that the appellant caused the injuries as aforesaid. The learned Judge however, found no reliable evidence to hold that the appellant had snatched the wrist, watch as alleged. That is how the appellant was acquitted of the offence of robbery, but convicted of attempt to murder.

(3.) A perusal of F.I.R. would indicate that it is the first available version of the incident and lodged without any delay. The distance between the place of incident and the Police Station was 9 Kms and yet the report was lodged in five hours. From the report, it is clear that the appellant hit Bashiruddin on his neck by giving two successive blows. Medical report proved by Dr. Mandloi (P.W. 7) fully supports the use of the axe as stated in the report. Bashiruddin (P.W. 1) has given clear and specific evidence that these injuries were caused by the appellants by using his axe. It is true that in the Court statement. Bashiruddin alleges three axe blows as against two cited by him in the First I.R. It may. Therefore be that he was trying to justify a lacerated wound on his person during medical examination. This by itself is not sufficient to discredit his version, about two axe blows and incised wounds. There is nothing in his cross-examination to doubt his aforesaid version. He has, of course not been able to stand the cross-examination about snatching of the wrist watch alleged to be with him at the time of the incident. The appellant has however, got the benefit of this weakness during the session trial and has been acquitted of the offence of robbery. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Bashirudding (P.W. 1) to suggest any previous enmity or any other motive of falsely making accusation (sic) against the appellant. It is improbable that a person would shelter the real culprit causing such bodily injuries and falsely make accusation against an innocent person. Evidence of Bashiruddin (P.W. 1) is fully supported by Shaft Mohd. (P.W. 2) Nasibuddin (P.W. 3) and Sukhlal (P.W. 4), who had rushed to the spot on hearing shouts of Bashiruddin and had taken him to the Police Station. They are the persons rushing to the help of an innocent victim having no motive whatsoever to make any false accusation against the appellant. Under the circumstances this Court is in full agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant who caused injuries on the person of Bashiruddin (P.W. 1) by using an axe.