Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Vikram Singh on 24 September, 2014
(1)
M.Cr.C. No. 7317/2013
(State of M.P. Vs. Vikram Singh)
24/09/2014
Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, PP for applicant / State.
Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 825/2013 (Lokendra Singh Vs. Vikrarm Singh and another) None for appellant.
Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.
Heard.
Per Justice S.K. Palo.
State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Civil Lines, Datia has filed this M.Cr.C No. 7317/2013 under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C challenging the judgment pronounced on 17.5.2013 in S.T. No. 68/2011 by which the 1st. A.S.J, Datia has convicted the accused Balveer Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC but has acquitted the non-applicant Vikram Singh, claiming leave to appeal be granted against the non- applicant Vikram Singh S/o Veer Bahadur Singh.
Criminal Appeal No. 825/2013 has been filed by the appellant Lokendra Singh son of deceased Raghuveer Singh, challenging the impugned judgment and requesting to set aside the part of the judgment by which respondent Vikram Singh has been acquitted by the learned (2) Trial Court.
It would be pertinent to mention here that the Criminal Appeal No. 453/2013 is also pending by which the appellant Balveer Singh has assailed the impugned judgment.
The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, has assailed the judgment on the ground that the accused Vikram Singh is equally liable for the offence. Prosecution witness, PW-2 Vikram Singh (S/o deceased Raghuveer Singh) has clearly stated that accused Vikram Singh also fired gun shot to deceased Raghuveer Singh. The deceased received two gun shot injuries. Hence, leave to appeal may be granted.
On behalf of non-applicant / accused Vikram Singh son of Veer Bahadur Singh, the argument is refuted.
Similarly in Criminal Appeal No. 825/2013 Lokendra Singh Vs. Vikram Singh, on behalf of appellant Lokendra Singh, it is submitted that Vikram Singh (S/o Beer Vahdur Singh) is equally liable for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, hence, liable for punishment.
We perused the record.
It is observed that the appellant Lokendra Singh examined as PW-1 has not stated anything about the so called fire of gun shot by accused Vikram Singh (son of Veer Bahadur Singh) in his entire statement. No doubt Vikram Singh (son of Raghuveer Singh) (PW-2) has stated that accused Vikram Singh fired gun shot to Raghuveer Singh, which hit on his left side of chest. But this version of Vikram Singh (PW-2) son of deceased Raghuveer Singh is not found (3) corroborated by any of the witnesses.
Examination of deceased Raghuveer Singh was done by Dr. B.D. Rathore (PW-7) by preparing MLC Ex. P/8, he found one firearm entry wound on the body of the deceased Raghuveer Singh on the left side of his chest near nipple at 5th inter coastal oblique down word and second wound is the exit wound of firearm left on the flank just over the iliac crest. Besides these two wounds there is no other wound on the body of the deceased Raghuveer Singh. Ex. P/16 is the digram of the dead body also indicates the same. No prosecution witness except PW-2 has stated about accused Vikram Singh son of Veer Bahadur Singh regarding firing any gun shot.
That being so, we are not convinced with the arguments put forth by the learned counsels as regarding the firing of gun shot by the accused Vikram Singh son of Veer Bahadur. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Consequently, both M.Cr.C No. 7317/2013 and Cr. Appeal No. 825/2013 (Lokendra Singh Vs. Vikram Singh) are dismissed.
Let record of the Trial Court be tagged along with Cr. Appeal No. 453/2013.
(S.K. Gangele) (S.K. Palo)
JUDGE JUDGE
dcs/-