AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Naugaon, District Chhatarpur, on 12/12/2012 in Sessions Trial No. 131/2005, whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have been convicted u/s 304 Part II read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine stipulation.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/7/04 at about 10 a.m., when complainant Shakeel Ahmad was buying vegetables from a shop located in the Vegetable Market at Naugaon, respondents, armed with Lathis, constituted an un-lawful assembly to kill him and in furtherance of their common object, started assaulting him. Shakeel fell on the spot and hearing his cries, Majrul Hasan, Salim Ansari and Munna Pathan came forward to intervene. Upon the report of Shakeel, Crime No. 233/04 (Ex.P/48) was registered. Shakeel was sent to Community Health Centre at Naugaon where Dr. K.K. Tripathi (PW14) found injuries on his right leg, left leg, left knee, left forearm, left arm, right arm, right knee and left shoulder. He referred Shakeel to District Hospital at Chhatarpur, where, as per X-ray report (Ex.P/11), fractures were found on his right & left tibia and fibula bones, Patella bone of knee and radius and ulna bones of left forearm. Dr. Devendra Paroha (PW7) admitted Shakeel to Dr. Jamdar Hospital, Jabalpur on 25/7/04, where during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries, thus caused, on 27/7/04. Accordingly, morgue was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that despite availability of sufficient material on record for conviction of the respondents u/s 302 of the IPC, they have been wrongly convicted u/s 304 Part II of the IPC.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the impugned judgment.
After proper appreciation of evidence, it has been held by the trial Court that the incident was not preplanned and no deadly weapon was used in committing the offence. Simply, deceased was assaulted with Lathis. He had died after a period of 4 days. Dr. Ashok Jain (PW27), who conducted the autopsy, did not opine the injuries to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the same were also not found on any vital parts. In such circumstances, respondents were rightly convicted u/s 304 Part II read with 149 of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.