The State Of M.P. vs Ramswaroop Vishwakarma And Anr.
2024 Latest Caselaw 27654 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of M.P. vs Ramswaroop Vishwakarma And Anr. on 1 October, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50437




                                                                  1                           CRA-1922-1997
                               IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                             &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
                                                    ON THE 1 st OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1922 of 1997
                                               THE STATE OF M.P.
                                                     Versus
                                 RAMSWAROOP VISHWAKARMA AND ANR. AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                            Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
                            Shri Pramendra Sen - Advocate for the respondent.

                                                                   ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.1997 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, East Nemar, Khandwa in Sessions Case No.69/87 recording a finding of acquittal from the charge under Section 307 of IPC on the ground that neither there was any TIP conducted nor the story of the complainant that he was subjected to an explosive injury being made out in terms of the evidence of (P.W-8) Dr. Dilip Tungare and the x-ray report (Ex-P/5) which says that neither any fracture was seen nor pallets

were seen.

It is submitted that since the accused were properly identified by the complainant at the Police Station and thereafter complainant had given statement that he was subjected to injury on account of explosion of the explosive substance, that narration should be accepted and a finding of conviction should have been recorded.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50437

2 CRA-1922-1997 Shri Pramendra Sen, learned counsel supports the impugned judgment of acquittal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, to constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC, it is necessary that there should be an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act, causes death he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years.

In the present case, none of the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC have been proved by the prosecution, neither they could proved the aspect of intention or knowledge or actually use of explosive to show that intention was to cause death. Therefore, in view of the evidence of (P.W-8) Dr. Dilip Tungare, X-ray report (Ex- P/5) where Doctor (P.W-8) has specifically stated that he had not found any

blackening or charring nor any powder was found on the edges of the wound and wound was measured 1/4x1/4x1/4 inch on the right scapular region which was in the form of lacerated wound, when read in conjunction with the x-ray report which says that there was no fracture, no pallet injury and pallets were found and further that no TIP was conducted by the prosecution, acquittal cannot be faulted with.

Appeal fails and is dismissed.

                                 (VIVEK AGARWAL)                              (PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
                                      JUDGE                                            JUDGE


                          anu