Guddu @ Chandra Dev Singh vs State Of M.P.

Conviction U/s,Sentence

U/s 302 of IPC,"Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default 6

months further rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 25(1)(b) of Arms Act,"One year rigorous imprisonment and find of

Rs.100/-, in default, 3 months additional rigorous

imprisonment.

Both the sentences to run concurrently.,

Regarding other witness Shrikesh Patel (PW-13) it has been argued that he is a chance witness. The same can not be accepted as the place of,

incident was hotel (Dhaba) and it was not unnatural about the presence of a 15 years old boy at the spot.,

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that from the testimony of the witnesses it can not be held that the accused had any intention to murder,

the deceased. It is on the heat of anger, he had fired on the deceased and therefore, the conviction be converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304",

Part-II IPC. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab,",

(2017)2 SCC 365.,

On assimilation of the testimony of witnesses, PW-3 and the other eye witnesses, it is clearly proved that the accused came on a motorcycle at the",

Dhaba having a country-made pistol loaded in his pocket and asked for money and on refusal thereof he fired the same from a close range on the vital,

part of the body i.e. chest. There was no any kind of provocation which has led the appellate to get agitated or any condition of uncontrollable heat of,

anger, depriving him of his self control. In the facts of the present case, the judgment relied by the counsel for the appellant, would not render any",

assistance to him. The ocular evidence in the present case is well corroborated with the medical evidence as the fire was made from a close range on,

the vital part of chest of the deceased resulting into serious injuries. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no",

intention to kill the deceased can not be accepted.,

The testimonies of eyewitness Pramod Singh (PW-3), Ramjan Khan (PW-4), Rajesh Prasad Patel (PW-5) and Shrikesh Patel (PW-13) are well",

corroborated with the seizure of country made pistol from the house of the appellant as well as F.S.L. report which has proved that the pistol seized by,

the appellant was used in commission of the offence.,

In view of the aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence, we find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable",

doubt and there is no error in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.,

Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.",