BOUVA MOHDHUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under section 326 I.P.C., in Sessions Trial No 5/82, in the Court of AddI. Sessions Judge, Satna, Judgment dated 29-11-83, has preferred this appeal. The appellant was converted under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years R.I.

(2.) In village Rampur Baghelan of District Satna there were 2 fractions of Muslims, one the complainant party and the other accused party including the appellant On 20.7.81 in the evening at 5-30, the complainant party consisting of Abdul Shamim, Abdul Mom and Abdul Rauf are said to have been proceeding towards their home from the market. When they reached near the Bour mill of Sidhsharan, they saw that an unlawful assembly of about 15 accused persons. including the appellant had assembled there with fire arms and, dangerous weapons. Someone from the unlawful assembly exhorted to kill the above, named 3 complainants. From the assembly of 15 accused persons, the appellant is alleged to have been armed with a country-made pistol and he fired at Abdul Rauf, Abdul Raut was injured by the pellets in chest and in the neck. He was rushed to police station Rampur Baghelan where the report was lodged. He was examined by Dr. A.K. Namdeo (P.W. 15) who found small pellet injuries upon the shoulder and the neck. The appellant Bouva was arrested and from whom a country-made pistol is alleged to have been recovered. The recovered country made pistol and the pellets from the body of the injured were sent for chemical examination. All the accused were prosecuted. The trial Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, acquitted 14 accused from the charges of sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C., but convicted only the appellant under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years R.I. It is against this judgment of conviction that the appellant has preferred this appeal before this court.

(3.) Shri S.C. Dutt, the learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly refrained from addressing this court so far as the merits of the conviction are concerned. His only contention is that the conviction of the appellant under section 326 I.P.C. is bad in law and actually the appellant can be said to have committed an offence punishable under section 324 I.P.C. Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State, has controverted the arguments of Shri Dutt and contended that the conviction of the appellant is correct in law because the, injured person has remained in the hospital for more than 20 days and. the case of the prosecution squarely falls in clause eighthly of section 320, I.P.C. Considered the rival or contentions.