BRAJENDRA @ GABBAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement dated 15.04.2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No. 42/2004 whereby finding the appellant guilty of the offence charged against him, sentenced him as under

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the present appellant Brajendra @ Gabbar and one Santosh Mishra on 02.06.2003 at around 11:50' O Clock under Section 302/34 of the IPC at the instance of P.W.8 Sudama Prasad Vishwakaram who had lodged Dehati Nalishi initially stating therein that in the morning at around 10' O Clock Gabbar Rajput, the present appellant and Rammu Raikwar were quarreling with each other over some water dispute. At that time Ramsevak Vishwakarma the deceased, resident of Tilakganj, Sagar, intervened and asked them to go home. Thereafter, appellant Gabbar Rajput herein went to his home. Deceased Ramsevak Vishwakarma, , Pw5 Rammu Raikwar and Karu Dev were sitting near the temple. After sometime, Gabbar Rajput and Santosh Mishra came holding country made pistols and started abusing Rammu Raikwar and Ramsevak and when Rammu Raikwar and Ramsevak tried to run away from the spot to save their lives, at that time, Pw5 Rammu Raikwar fell down in front of Pw2 Ashok Vishwakarma's (Kabadi) shop and with a view to murder him, Gabbar, the present appellant fired shot but somehow Pw5 Rammu Raikwar escaped the shot but deceased Ramsevak also fell down in front of the shop of Ashok Kabadi and Gabbar also shot him which hit him on his hand and thereafter, Santosh Mishra shot him on his chest with his gun. Soon after the incident, FIR was lodged by P.W.8 Sudama Prasad Vishwakarma who happens to be brother of the deceased.

(3.) After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the Learned Judge of the trial Court convicted the appellant as aforesaid, however, as accused Santosh Mishra was absconding, he could be traced till date. The case of the prosecution rests on the eye-witness account as also the injuries caused to the deceased and recoveries made from the possession of the appellant.