Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parmal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.754 OF 2014
BETWEEN:-
PARMAL SINGH, S/O SHRI SARNAM SINGH
RAGHUWANSHI, AGED 27 YEARS,
OCCUPATION- STUDENT, R/O- HANUMAN
COLONY, GUNA, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH-
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POLICE
STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJESH SHUKLA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 14th of February, 2023
Pronounced on : 12th of April, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Satyendra Kumar Singh pronounced the following:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (for brevity
"Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/5/2014 passed by
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Guna to the
Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (Madhya
Pradesh) in Sessions Case No.183/2012, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (3
counts) of Indian Penal Code (for brevity "IPC") and under Section 25
(1) (A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
302 IPC Life Rs.5000/- RI for 2 years
Imprisonment
307 IPC RI for 10 years Rs.2000/- RI for 1 year
(3 counts) (3 counts) (3 counts) (3 counts)
25(1)(A) Arms Act RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- RI for 6 months
27 Arms Act RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- RI for 6 months
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 22/1/2012 at about 20:20 hours, complainant- Gopal Krishna
Sharma made an oral complaint to the effect that at about 19:30 hours,
when he alongwith his nephew Anil Sharma and Shailendra Sharma was
coming on his foot from Old Sabji Mandi and reached in front of
Rajshri Hotel, District- Guna, a quarrel was already going on there
between Ravi Raghuvanshi, Rinku Raghuvanshi & Shailendra
Raghuvanshi and appellant Parmal Raghuvanshi, co-accused Santosh
Raghuvanshi & Sarnam Raghuvanshi. Alongwith the appellant Parmal,
co-accused Santosh and Sarnam, two more persons were also there, and
on confrontation, he would identify them. Appellant Parmal was hurling
filthy abuses and fired twice from his pistol, out of which one bullet hit
on the right thigh of Ravi Raghuvanshi. On seeing the complainant and
his nephew coming there, appellant Parmal and co-accused Santosh by
hurling filthy abuses told the complainant that he is exceeding/doing
over Councillorship (Bahut Parshadi Karta Hai). Thereafter, appellant
Parmal fired towards complainant, which hit the chest of the
complainant's nephew Anil Sharma, due to which he had fallen on the
ground. Co-accused Santosh was also carrying a pistol and fired twice
towards complainant and Shailendra Raghuvanshi, which passed above
the head of the complainant and by the side of Shailendra Raghuvanshi.
Thereafter, all the assailants fled away from the spot by hurling filthy
abuses. Complainant alongwith others took his nephew Anil Sharma to
the hospital in a vehicle, where after check-up he was declared dead.
(ii) On the basis of aforesaid oral complaint made by the complainant,
SI, S.K. Chaudhary lodged the FIR, Ex.P/1, against appellant Parmal,
co-accused Santosh & Sarnam alongwith two other unknown persons at
Police Station Kotwali Guna, District- Guna. On 22/1/2012 itself,
injured Ravi was sent to District Hospital Guna for medical
examination, where at about 20:00 hours, Dr. D.S. Rana medically
examined him and found two punctured lacerated wounds on his right
upper thigh, caused by firearm, within 6 hours of medical examination
as per MLC report, Ex.P/7.
(iii) On the same day, Senior Scientific Officer, Scene of Crime,
Mobile Unit, District Guna Dr. R.C. Ahirwar alongwith SI, S.K.
Chaudhary, inspected the spot and gave his report, Ex.P/12. SI, S.K.
Chaudhary prepared the spot map, Ex.P/5, and seized two fired empty
cartridges, Articles A-1 & A-2, and one live cartridge, Article A-3, vide
seizure memo, Ex.P/8, from the place of incident.
(iv) On 23/1/2012 at about 9.00 hours, SI, S.K. Chaudhary went to
District Hospital Guna, called the witnesses issuing Safina form, Ex.P/2,
prepared Naksha Panchayatnama, Ex.P/3 of the body of the deceased
Anil Sharma and sent the same for postmortem examination vide letter,
Ex.P/11. On the same day, at about 10:30 hours, Dr. P.N. Dhakad
alongwith Dr Maneesh Jain, conducted the postmortem examination of
the body of the deceased and found one star shaped pallet wound on left
side of his chest alongwith other injuries. He prepared the postmortem
report (Ex. P/11) and opined that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased were antemortem and deceased died due to shock, hemorrhage
and cardio-respiratory failure as a result of firearm gunshot injuries,
within 24 hours from the time of postmortem examination. He found
one bullet size 1 x 1.2 cm at left side of back, just straight to entry
wound track. He sealed the bullet found from the body of the deceased
and handed over the same alogwith other articles to the police official,
who brought the dead body of the deceased.
(v) H.C., Vidya Ram seized the sealed bundle (Potli) received from
the hospital vide seizure memo, Ex.P/6. SI, S.K. Chaudhary arrested the
appellant Parmal vide arrest memo, Ex.P/13, recorded his disclosure
statement, Ex.P/11, and on the basis of which seized a pistol, Article A-
4, alongwith three live crtridges, Articles A-5 to A-7, vide seizure
memo, Ex.P-14, from his possession. Arms Moharrir Anil Sharma
examined the aforesaid seized pistol and cartridges, and gave his report,
Ex.P/15. All the seized articles were sent to FSL Sagar. I/O Ramesh
Dande obtained the prosecution sanction, Ex.P/10, against the appellant
and also obtained FSL reports, Ex.C/1 & C/2. After completion of
investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant Parmal and co-
accused Santosh before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Guna,
who made over the same to the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, Guna to the Court of First Additional Sessions
Judge, Guna, District Guna.
3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima facie available
on record framed the charges under Sections 148, 294, 307 r/w 149 (on
three counts), and 302 r/w 149 of IPC against the appellant and co-
accused Santosh. Alongwith aforesaid charges, the charges under
Sections 27 and 25 (1) (A) of the Arms Act were also framed against the
appellant. Appellant and co-accused Santosh abjured their guilt and
prayed for trial. They have taken defence that at the time of incident,
complainant Gopal Krishna Sharma was not present on the spot and at
the time of incident injured Ravi Raghuvanshi himself was carrying a
pistol and opened fire, the bullets of which hit him as well as the
deceased Anil Sharma. In support of their defence, they have examined
appellant Parmal (DW-1), Devendra Singh (DW-2) and Shailendra
Sharma (DW-3).
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused
Santosh from all the charges and appellant from the charges u/S 148 and
294 of IPC, while recorded the findings of conviction against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (3 counts)
of IPC as well as under Section 25 (1) (A) and 27 of the Arms Act and
sentenced him as stated in para 1 of this judgment.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the
impugned judgment and discharging him from the aforesaid charges
framed against him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant-
Gopal Krishna Sharma had lodged the FIR against the appellant-
Parmal, his brother co-accused Santosh, his father Sarnam Singh and
two other unknown persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against appellant- Parmal and his brother co-accused Santosh showing
the investigation pending against his father Sarnam Singh. Thereafter, it
was informed by the prosecution that there is no evidence against
Sarnam Singh. Complainant- Gopal Krishna Sharma, in his statement
recorded during trial, stated about the acts of the appellant- Parmal, his
brother co-accused Santosh, and his father Sarnam Singh, but other
eyewitnesses including injured Ravi Raghuvanshi have nowhere stated
about the involvement of co-accused Santosh and his father Sarnam
Singh in the crime. Statements of the complainant and other eye
witnesses are inconsistent on other material issues, which in itself makes
their credibility doubtful. It is not the prosecution case that the appellant
fired on the complainant and Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi, even
then the learned Trial Court has held the appellant guilty for attempt to
commit their murder. It is apparent from the statements of defence
witnesses that at the time of incident Ravi Raghuvanshi himself was
carrying pistol and tried to fire at the appellant and when appellant
caught hold his hand, a scuffle took place between them, during which
pistol was accidentally fired and he as well as Anil Sharma sustained
bullet injuries. The whole prosecution case is doubtful. The impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside, hence, the same may be set aside and
appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed against him.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State while
supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
submits that the impugned judgment so passed by the Trial Court is
based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The
appellant himself has admitted that on the date of incident, he had called
Monu alias Shailendra and when Monu alias Shailendra came on the
spot alongwith Ravi Raghuvanshi and others, a quarrel took place
wherein Ravi Raghuvanshi and deceased Anil Sharma sustained bullet
injuries. Ravi Raghuvanshi sustained gunshot injury on backside of his
right thigh, while gunshot injury found on the body of the deceased Anil
Sharma was fired from some distance, therefore, the defence taken by
the appellant that the above injuries were accidentally caused by the
pistol of Ravi Raghuvanshi itself during scuffle is not probable at all.
The weapon used in the crime has been seized from the possession of
the appellant. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Appeal is devoid of merits. Therefore, confirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. Prosecution case is based on direct as well as circumstantial
evidence and prosecution in its support has examined complainant
Gopal Krishna Sharma (PW-1), Monu alias Shailendra (PW-6), Ravi
Raghuvanshi (PW-7) and Mahesh Kumar Ojha (PW-9) as eyewitnesses.
Other material witnesses are Dr. D.S. Rana (PW-4), who medically
examined Ravi Raghuvanshi, and Dr. P.N. Dhakad (PW-13), who
conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased Anil
Sharma. SI, S.K. Chaudhary (PW-14), who seized two empty cartridges
alongwith one live cartridge from the place of occurrence, arrested the
appellant, recorded his disclosure statements and seized the weapon
"country made pistol", used in the crime from the possession of the
appellant. I/O Inspector Ramesh Dande (PW-16), who partly
investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet.
10. Upon perusal of the record, this fact appears undisputed that on
the date of incident i.e. 22/1/2012, appellant Parmal telephonically
called Monu alias Shailendra at Rajshri Bhojnalaya, Guna to settle his
account, as he had taken some money from him. This fact also appears
undisputed that on the same day at about 19:00-19:15 hours, Monu alias
Shailendra Raghuvansh alongwith injured Ravi Raghuvanshi, Rinku
alias Rajkumar and Mahesh Ojha went to Rajshri Bhojnalaya to meet
the appellant, where appellant offered him to sit inside the Bhojnalay
and when he denied to go inside the Bhojnalay due to pausity of time,
appellant took him 5-7 feet away to have a talk with him privately,
whereafter, a quarrel took place between them, wherein, Ravi
Raghuvanshi sustained injuries on his right upper thigh, while deceased
Anil Sharma sustaind injuries on left side of his chest.
11. SI, S.K. Chaudhary (PW-14) deposed that on 22/1/2012 itself, he
after lodging the FIR, Ex.P/1, sent the injured Ravi Raghuvanshi to
District Hospital Guna for medical examination. Dr. D.S. Rana (PW-4)
deposed that on the same day at about 20:00 hours, he medically
examined Ravi Raghuvanshi and found following injuries on his body:-
(1) One punctured lacerated wound, measuring 1.5 x
1/2 cm., depth of which could not be assessed,
having extended irregular ragged margins and
blackening around the wound, over right upper
thigh posteriorly, directing anterio medially.
Bleeding out from wound. Showing oblique oval
entries within wound.
(2) One punctured, oblique oval shaped, lacerated
wound, measuring 1 x 1/2 cm., exact depth of
which could not be assessed due to bleeding,
having inverted irregular ragged margins and
blackening present around the wound, over right
upper thigh, posteromedial, directing anterio-
laterally. . Bleeding out from wound.
12. Dr. D.S. Rana (PW-4) deposed that he prepared the MLC report,
Ex.P/7, and opined that both the above injuries were caused by firearm,
within 6 hours of medical examination.
13. SI, S.K. Chaudhary (PW-14) deposed that on the next day i.e.
23/1/2012 at about 9.00 hours, he went to District Hospital Guna, called
the witnesses issuing Safina form, Ex.P/2, prepared Naksha
Panchayatnama, Ex.P/3 of the body of the deceased Anil Sharma and
sent the same for postmortem examination vide letter, Ex.P/11. Dr. P.N.
Dhakad (PW-13) deposed that on the same day, at about 10:30 hours, he
alongwith Dr Maneesh Jain, conducted the postmortem of the body of
the deceased and found following injuries on his body :
External Injuries:
(1) On left side of chest, one star shaped pallet
wound, measuring 0.6 cm x 0.8 cm, at 1 cm
medial to mid clavicular line, 5 cm below nipple.
Blood oozing present from wound, red blood
present, margins abraded, wound is inverted.
(2) Abrasion at B/C knee. Size ½ X ½ cm both side.
Internal Injuries:
Heart pericardium torn. Star shaped entry pallet
wound present at left ventricle of the heart, while exit
wound present at left atrium (chamber). Blood oozing
present, large ventricle empty. Large vessel torn.
One bullet size 1 x 1.2 cm is found at left side
of back, just straight to entry wound track.
14. Dr. P.N. Dhakad (PW-13) deposed that he prepared postmortem
report (Ex. P/11) and opined that all the injuries found on the body of
the deceased were antemortem and were caused by firearm. He deposed
that injury no.1 was fatal and the deceased died due to shock,
hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure as a result of above gunshot
injuries, within 24 hours from the time of postmortem examination. He
sealed the bullet found from the body of the deceased and handed over
the same alogwith other articles to the police official, who brought the
dead body of the deceased.
15. Appellant has not challenged the aforesaid statements of Dr. D.S.
Rana (PW-4) and MLC report, Ex.P/7, prepared by him as well as
statements of Dr. P.N. Dhakad (PW-13) and postmortem report, Ex.
P/11, prepared by him, therefore, these facts are also established that
during the quarrel occurred between the appellant and Monu alias
Shailendra at the time of incident, Ravi Raghuvanshi and deceased Anil
Sharma both sustained gunshot injuries and deceased Anil Sharma died
due to the said injuries sustained by him.
16. So for as the issue whether the aforesaid gunshot injuries were
caused by the appellant with an intent to commit murder of injured Ravi
Raghuvanshi and deceased Anil Sharma alongwith the complainant
Gopalkrishna Sharma and Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi, is
concerned, prosecution in its support has examined complainant
Gopalkrishna Sharma (PW-1), Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi
(PW-6), Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7) and Mahesh Kumar Ojha (PW-9) as
eyewitnesses. Mahesh Kumar Ojha (PW-9) has not supported the
prosecution case and has turned hostile, but rest all the eye witnesses
have supported the prosecution case.
17. Complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma (PW-1) deposed that on
22/1/2012 at about 19:30 hours, when he alongwith his nephew Anil
Sharma and Shailendra Sharma was coming on his foot from Old Sabji
Mandi and reached in front of Rajshri Hotel, District- Guna, he saw the
appellant and co-accused Santosh abusing filthy languages to
Shailendra Raghuvanshi. He deposed that at that time alongwith the
appellant and co-accused Santosh, Sarnam and two more persons were
also present on the spot. He deposed that the co-accused Santosh took
out his pistol and fired twice, out of which one bullet hit at the right
thigh of Ravi Raghuvanshi. But after recording of his statements and
before signing on the deposition sheet, when he pointed out that the
bullet, which hit right thigh of injured Ravi Raghuvanshi, was fired not
by the co-accused Santosh but by the appellant, he was re-examined and
then, he in para 28 of his re-examination-in-chief stated that the gunshot
fired by the appellant hit the right thigh of injured Ravi Raghuvanshi.
18. Complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma (PW-1) further deposed that
appellant and co-accused persons, on seeing the complainant coming
there, by hurling filthy abuses told him that he is exceeding/doing over
Councillorship (Bahut Parshadi Karta Hai), and thereafter, appellant
Parmal fired towards complainant, which hit the chest of the
complainant's nephew Anil Sharma, due to which he fell on the ground.
He deposed that the co-accused Santosh was also carrying a pistol and
fired twice towards complainant and Shailendra Raghuvanshi, which
passed above the head of the complainant and by the side of Shailendra
Raghuvanshi.
19. Complainant's aforesaid statements although find support from
the FIR, Ex.P-1, lodged by him, but the same are inconsistent with the
statements of other eyewitnesses Shailendra Raghuvanshi (PW-6) and
Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7) on the point of appellant's act. Monu alias
Shailendra Raghuvanshi (PW-6) deposed that after assaulting Ravi
Raghuvanshi, the appellant fired at complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma
and Anil Sharma, which hit the chest of Anil Sharma, due to which he
fell on the ground. He deposed that thereafter, appellant fired at him as
well as on the complainant. He, in para 28 of his cross-examination,
clarified that the gunshots fired at him as well as at the complainant
were fired by the appellant and not by the co-accused Santosh, as stated
by the complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma. Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7)
also made similar statements.
20. Since the statements of Shailendra Raghuvanshi (PW-6) and Ravi
Raghuvanshi (PW-7) about the gunshot assaults made on complainant
Gopalkrishna Sharma and Shailendra Raghuvanshi are inconsistent with
their own earlier Statements, Ex.P-9 and Ex.D-1 respectively, recorded
during investigation u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. and also with the FIR, Ex.P-1,
and the statements of the complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma, therefore,
this fact cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant with an intent to commit murder of the complainant
Gopalkrishna Sharma and Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi, fired on
them and attempted to commit their murder. Hence, the conviction of
the appellant in this regard for the ofences punishable u/S 307 (Two
counts) of IPC, is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
21. So far as the assaults made on injured Ravi Raghuvanshi and
deceased Anil Sharma are concerned, all the above witnesses including
complainant Gopalkrishna Sharma have deposed that the appellant
Parmal fired at Ravi Raghuvanshi and thereafter, at Anil Sharma and
caused gunshot injuries to them. Their statements are consistent on the
aforesaid point and find support from the FIR, Ex.P-1 also. Appellant
has nowhere challenged the presence of Shailendra Raghuvanshi (PW-
6) and Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7) on the spot at the time of incident, and
has admitted that Ravi Raghuvanshi and Anil Sharma sustained gunshot
injuries at the time of incident. During cross-examination of Shailendra
Raghuvanshi (PW-6) and Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7), it has been
suggested on behalf of the appellant that at the time of incident when
exchange of hot words was going on, Ravi Raghuvanshi himself took
out a pistol and tried to fire at him, and when appellant caught hold his
hand, his pistol was accidentally fired and hit his own right thigh as well
as the chest of Anil Sharma.
22. Appellant, in support of his above defence, has examined
Devendra Singh (DW-2) and Shailendra Sharma (DW-3). Devendra
Singh (DW-2) deposed that at the time of incident he alongwith the
deceased Anil Sharma was standing near the place of occurrence. He
deposed that when a quarrel was going on between Ravi and appellant
Parmal, Anil Sharma went there to intervene, thereafter, Ravi took out a
weapon and appellant caught hold his hand and during their scuffle,
pistol was fired and bullets of which hit Ravi as well as Anil Sharma.
Shailendra Sharma (DW-3) deposed that at the time of incident, he was
not present on the spot as stated by the complainant Gopalkrishna
Sharma. But appellant Parmal (DW-1), in his statements recorded
during trial, himself has not stated anything in this regard. Nothing
material has been extracted during the cross-examination of Shailendra
Raghuvanshi (PW-6) and Ravi Raghuvanshi (PW-7), on the basis of
which their statements with regard to the fact that injuries found on the
body of Ravi Raghuvanshi and deceased Anil Sharma were caused by
the appellant, can be disbelieved or doubted.
23. Admittedly, at the time of incident quarrel was going on not
between Ravi and appellant Parmal, but between Shailendra
Raghuvanshi and appellant. It is apparent from the statements of Dr P.N.
Dhakad (PW-13), that the pallet wound found on the body of the
deceased Anil Sharma was not having carbon and was fired at some
distance. It is apparent from the statements of Dr D.S. Rana (PW-4), that
Ravi Raghuvanshi sustained injuries on his right upper thigh posteriorly.
All the above facts clearly negate the appellant's defence that at the time
of incident, appellant and Ravi Raghuvanshi were scuffling and when
Anil Sharma intervened, Ravi's pistol was fired and hit Ravi as well as
Anil Sharma. Causing such bodily injuries by a firearm, itself shows
that the same were caused with an intent to commit murder of injured
Ravi Raghuvanshi and deceased Anil Sharma.
24. Above fact also finds support from the statement of SI, S.K.
Chaudhary (PW-14), who deposed that on 24/1/2012 appellant in his
disclosure statement, Ex.P/11, disclosed about the pistol, on the basis of
which, on 25/1/2012, at the instance of appellant, he seized a pistol,
Article A-4 alongwith three live cartridges, Articles A-5 to A-7, from
bushes as per seizure memo, Ex.P/14. bushes. It is apparent from his
statement that the place from where the aforesaid pistol was seized, was
although a public place, but the pistol could only be seen by a person
who placed the same there. It is apparent from the FSL report, Ex.C-2,
that the bullet found in the body of the deceased Anil Sharma during
postmortem examination was fired from similar type of weapon as
seized from the possession of the appellant.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, learned Trial Court has
although committed error in convicting the appellant for making an
attempt to commit murder of complainant Gopal Krishna Sharma and
Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi, but has not committed any error in
convicting the appellant for committing murder of the deceased-Anil
Sharma and attempt to commit murder of Ravi Raghuvanshi.
26. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed and appellant's conviction
and sentence u/S 307 of IPC (Two Counts) for making attempt to
commit murder of complainant Gopal Krishna Sharma and Monu alias
Shailendra Raghuvanshi is set aside, while his conviction and sentence
u/S 302 and 307 of IPC for committing murder of the deceased Anil
Sharma and making an attempt to commit murder of Ravi Raghuvanshi
is affirmed alongwith his conviction and sentence u/S Section 25 (1) (A)
and 27 of the Arms Act.
27. With the aforesaid modifications, this criminal appeal filed
against the judgment 13/5/2014 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Guna to the Court of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (Madhya Pradesh) in Sessions
Case No.183/2012 is disposed of accordingly.
28. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant for making
attempt to commit murder of complainant Gopal Krishna Sharma and
Monu alias Shailendra Raghuvanshi be refunded to him.
29. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve the remaining jail sentence.
30. The Registry is directed to immediately supply a copy of this
judgment to the appellant, free of cost.
31. Let the record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately, along
with copy of this judgment, for necessary information and compliance.
32. Appeal succeeds and is Allowed in part.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.04.12 17:01:13 +05'30'
