INDRESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 29/10/1993 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 25/92, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further S. I. for 1 month.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in short is that Shivendra Pratap Singh was S. H. O. of police Station, Anuppur on 22. 12. 1991. At about 5:00 a. m. he had gone to investigate Crime No. 177/91 under Section 395/397. He reached at village Sinduri where he inquired about the miscreants. It was apprised that they had gone towards tipan river, therefore, he proceeded towards that side. He saw that fire was burning near Tipan river. He suspected the miscreants. Four miscreants having suitcase in their hand tried to run away. He warned them to stop but one of the miscreants fired towards him. Again he tried to prevent then another miscreant fired towards him. He asked them to surrender but one of the miscreants loaded cartridge in country-made pistol then he fired with his revolver to defend himself and his police party. Constable Balendra Prasad Mishra also fired at his direction. Two miscreants sustained injuries. They were caught and two other also caught. Katta of 315 bore along with one live cartridge was seized from Ramkishore (deceased) in encounter and one 315 bore Katta and one live cartridge was seized from this appellant. The seizure of the looted articles were also effected from the accused persons. Since the appellant was injured he was admitted in hospital. Another injured person Ramkishore died. Spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. After completing the usual investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court of j. M. F. C. , Anuppur who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

(3.) APPELLANT stood charged under Section 307 of I. P. C. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereas appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty under Section 307 of I. P. C. and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.