SURESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal filed u/S 374(2) of IPC assails the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2000 passed in S.T. No. 250/1988, holding the appellant guilty for murder of deceased Prithvi Raj in an incident which occurred on 14.05.1988 at 4:10 p.m, convicting him u/S 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further convicting the appellant u/S 27 of Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation while acquitting the other two accused namely Parmal and Thakuri.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard finally.

(3.) The skeletal facts in nutshell are that on 14.05.1988, at about 4:10 p.m., the deceased Prithiviraj was sitting outside the shop of the watchmaker PW-1 Pappu alias Kamruddin when the three accused including the appellant came on scooter. The appellant alighted from the scooter and shot the deceased with his firearm. The deceased sustained firearm injury in his jaw and fell down on the spot. The appellant Suresh thereafter fled away from the scene on the scooter with the other two acquitted accused. Incidentally, the SubInspector Jitendra Singh Bhadoriya PW-12 who arrived immediately after occurrence of the incident recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-21 as per the version of the incident disclosed by the injured deceased. The said Sub-Inspector took the deceased to the hospital and simultaneously registered the offence at the concerned Police Station. In the hospital, Dr. Shahid Hussain PW-2 recorded the dying declaration Ex. P15. Close on heels, the 3rd statement of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Jamner Distt. Morena Shri R.K. Waghri PW-4 Vide Exhibit P-15-B. The necessary formalities in the process of investigation were concluded. Necessary arrest, recovery and seizure alongwith sending the seized items for forensic examination were made. The chargsheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant alongwith the other two acquitted accused abjured guilt and alleged ignorance about the crime and false implication due to past animosity between the rival parties.