The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Harjeet Singh

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:

Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alongwith Sardar ran away from the spot. The Complainant – Sukhdev further stated that he would be able to identify Harjeet Singh, and the two assailants once he sees them.

2.2 Immediately after the assault on 12.11.1997, the Complainant – Sukhdev was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar for treatment. 2.3 The medical examination of the Complainant – Sukhdev was conducted by Dr. M. Bhagat – P.W.6 at the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar, which recorded the following injuries :

The medical report further stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp­edged, pointed object.

2.4 The Complainant – Sukhdev was referred to the District Hospital, Guna wherein X­Ray of his chest region was conducted by P.W. 8 – Dr. Raghuvanshi. The Report states that there was “haziness in lungs, left side of chest, present due to trauma of chest”.

2.5 On 24.11.1997, the Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested by the Police. The weapon of offence i.e. the knife allegedly used by Accused /Respondent No. 1 was recovered from the bushes next to the bridge, on the statement given by Accused /Respondent No. 1.

2.8 The case was registered as Case No. 10/98 before the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna District, Madhya Pradesh (Sessions Court). 2.9 The Sessions Court vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998, found Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence of ‘attempt to murder’. The findings of the Sessions Court were as follows:

5.2 The prosecution also examined an independent witness – Advocate (P.W. 3), who had come to the Court, and after hearing the commotion, reached the site of occurrence, where he found the Complainant – Sukhdev lying in a pool of blood along with his brothers – P.W.s 4 and 5. The independent witness – Advocate (P.W. 3) deposed that on enquiring further about the matter, he was informed by P.W.s 4 and 5 – the brothers of the complainant – Sukhdev, that Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had attacked and stabbed the Complainant.

severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” (emphasis supplied) 5.7 In view of the above­mentioned findings, it is evident that the ingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intention of the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearly from his conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

6. The present Criminal Appeal is partially allowed. The judgment of the High Court qua Accused /Respondent No. 1, is set­aside, and the sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998 is restored. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 is directed to undergo the remainder of the 5 year Sentence awarded by the Sessions Court, and surrender before the Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, Guna, M.P. within 2 weeks from the date of this Judgment. 19

7. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w. Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is lack of consistency in the deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal.

We affirm the judgment of the High Court qua Accused No. 2, and confirm the Order of acquittal passed in his favour on 03.01.2006.

The Criminal Appeal along with all pending Applications, if any, are disposed of in the above terms.

Ordered accordingly.