Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Vaidya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
(Division Bench - S.K. Gangele &
H.P. Singh JJ.)
Criminal Appeal No.525/2015
Jagdish Vaidya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri Sandeep Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
(16.03.2017) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2015, passed in Session Trial No.568/2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rehli, District Sagar, whereby the present appellant stood convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(1-B)(A) and 27 of Arms Act. Following his conviction, he has been sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one year, for Section 25(1)(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine additional R.I. for 3 months and for Section 27 of Arms Act, he has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine additional R.I. for 3 months.
22. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that on the date of incident i.e. 30.4.2011, at 9:30, the procession of 'Barat', having about 150-200 Baratis, for the marriage of daughter of Bhagwat Sharan Panda(PW/3), who is the relative of appellant, was going to marriage place. As soon as said 'Barat' reached near one Tiraha, appellant-Jagdish fired gun on deceased Balram alias Bala Prasad, and caused injury on his stomach due to previous enmity, who succumbed to the injuries. Soon after the incident, deceased Balram alias Bala Prasad was brought to District Hospital Damoh where he was declared dead by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (PW/19). He gave written information to Police Station Damoh. On the basis of report written by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (PW/19), Merg No.0/11 was registered by Asstt. Sub Inspector H.R. Pandey, at Police Station City Kotwali, District Damoh, thereupon FIR Ex.P/19 numbering 0/2011 was registered against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, inquest memo Ex.P/2 was prepared before witnesses after giving notice of Ex.P/1. After sending the requisition, postmortem of the dead body of deceased Balram alias Bala Prasad was performed on 1.5.2011 by Dr. Sachin Jain (PW/19) and as per his postmortem report Ex.P/18, he found one gun shot injury on the stomach of person of deceased. Dr. Sachin Jain packed the cloths containing pant, underwear, handkerchief, shirt, Bunyan, preserved the skin of wound of entry in a bottle and handed over to the concerned Police Constable. He opined that cause of death of deceased was due to severe blood loss, resulting into shock due to gun shot, which ruptured the 3 femoral vessel. The aforesaid articles were seized by police Damoh. Being the spot of incident within jurisdiction Police Station Rehli, on the basis of above Crime No.0/11, P.S. Kotwali Damoh, Crime No.198/2011 Ex.P/16 was registered by Station House Officer, Santosh Kumar Dixit (PW/20) at Police Station Rehli, District Sagar.
3. During investigation on 1.5.2011, one empty brass cartridge, one black chappal of right leg and one towel were seized by S.H.O. Santosh Kumar Dixit (PW/20), from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. On the same date i.e. 1.5.2011, Shriram Sirothiya (PW/8) saw one shirt, mobile, pistol, one magzine, lying in his onion field near a bore-well and on the basis of his information said articles including blood stained earth and plain earth were seized by Santosh Kumar Dixit (PW/20) vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. The aforesaid articles relating to deceased and viscera received from Govt. Hospital Damoh were seized by Santosh Kumar Dixit (PW/20) from Constable Narendra Singh (PW/18). Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar vide memo Ex.P/27 and report was received from F.S.L. Vide Ex.P/29. As per that report, on the full pant, shirt Bunyan of deceased and shirt of appellant blood has been found. As per report of F.S.L. Ex.P/30, the seized pistol was in running condition. On the shirt, banyan and full pant of the deceased holes measuring 0.3 inch x 0.3 inches, having presence of copper, were found. On the piece of skin of the deceased, presence of copper was found. As per report, presence of copper indicates about gun shot.
4Permission to prosecute the appellant under Section 25/27 Arms Act was taken vide Ex.P/15 from District Magistrate Sagar.
4. During investigation, the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate against the appellant. Case was committed to the Sessions Court as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case was made over to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charges as aforesaid against the appellant. Contents of the charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He took plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. But, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as above. However, he did not produce any defence witness.
5. The learned trial Court upon hearing the parties, on going through the evidence of the witnesses, exhibited documents and material available before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this instant appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
58. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, being relative of the deceased, are interested witnesses and their statements cannot be relied upon. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that in Bundelkhand region there is an old tradition to shoot fire from gun during barat processions at marriage ceremony. Evidence available on record shows that there was no intention of appellant to harm anyone, but was only to fire gun as a part of ceremony. The said incident was nothing, but was an accident. He submits that it is a case of negligence in handling the pistol and not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the learned Court below erred in holding the appellant guilty. He prays for acquittal of the appellant by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
9. Combating the above arguments, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has submitted that there is enough evidence to hold guilty the appellant for commission of above mentioned offence. Eye witnesses and FSL reports have supported the case of prosecution. The learned Panel Lawyer has, vehemently, argued that learned trial Court in its detailed judgment has considered thoroughly each and every factual and legal position submitted by the defence as well as prosecution and rightly convicted and 6 sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
10. The prosecution has examined total 21 witnesses in its support. Out of them, Somnath Vaidya (PW/1), Bablu alias Krishna Kumar (PW/2), Bhagwat Sharan (PW/3), Mahendra Kumar (PW/4), and Dashrathlal (PW/14) were the eye witnesses while Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Vaidya (PW/6), Ritesh Dubey (PW/7) were also present on the spot and saw the appellant when he was fleeing away.
11. Now the question which is crucial to be decided here is whether the deceased has died ?
12. Witness Somnath Vaidya (PW/1), Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4), Nanhe Vaidya (PW/6) are younger brother of deceased while Bablu alias Krishna Kumar (PW/2), Videsh Vaidya (PW/5) & Ritesh Dubey (PW/7) are the cousin brother of deceased, and Bhagwati Sharan (PW/3) is the father of girl, whose marriage was to be performed, have unanimously stated that deceased has died. As per evidence on record, deceased was brought to hospital where he was declared dead and information was sent by the doctor to Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh and on that report Merg No.01/2011 was registered. Inquest memo Ex.P/2 was prepared and thereafter autopsy of dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Sachin Jain (PW/19). All these things have also supported the death of deceased and accordingly, it is proved that in the evening of 30.4.2011 deceased had died.
713. Now, the next question for consideration is that whether the death of deceased is homicidal in nature ?
14. Eye witnesses Somnath Vaidya (PW/1), Bablu Kumar Vaidya (PW/2), Dashrathlal Lodhi (PW/14) have stated in their statements that they saw that appellant fired by a country made pistol on the deceased and due to that bullet hit the stomach of the deceased below four finger from the navel, as a result of which he fell down on the spot. During the course of transmitting him to the hospital, he died on the way. Dr. Sachin Jain (PW/19) has stated that on 1.5.2011, he had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of deceased. He further stated that there was wound below navel of stomach of deceased in right side 1 x 1 cm and skin around the injury was blackish in colour and in burnt condition, which was a gun shot injury. He further stated that the cause of death was due to severe blood loss resulting into shock due to gun shot, which ruptured the femoral vessel. As per statement of Dr. Sachin Jain (PW/19), he packed cloths of deceased, being pant, underwear, handkerchief, shirt, Bunyan, and preserved the skin of wound of entry in a bottle and handed over to the concerned Police Constable, which were sent to FSL Sagar. As per FSL report on shirt, pant, bunyan one hole on each was found and near the holes of cloths and on the piece of skin of the deceased, preserved by doctor, presence of copper was found, as a result of which it is proved that the hole on the body of deceased as well as on his cloths were caused by gun shot. Thus, looking to 8 the statements of eye witnesses and available other scientific evidences, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased was homicidal in nature.
15. Now the question for our consideration is whether the death of deceased was caused by the appellant and accordingly, he has committed the murder of Balram @ Bala Prasad?
16. As it has been mentioned above that deceased had died and his death is of homicidal in nature. Now the question is that whether the death of deceased was caused by the appellant ? To prove this fact, amongst other eye witnesses and witnesses of spot, one eye witness Mahendra kumar Dubey (PW/4) has stated that on 30.4.2011 in procession of Barat of his nephew Sanju, he was going with his elder brother deceased Bala Prasad. Bala Prasad was moving ahead and he was moving behind him. Procession of Barat was stopped near the trijunction. He further stated that he saw that appellant Jagdish taken out the firearm kept in the waist and fired on Bala Prasad, which hit on his stomach below the navel. He further stated that when he shouted, other persons rushed to the spot and appellant fled away from there .
17. In the cross-examination, Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4) has denied that at the time of incident his attention was at the dance in the procession of Barat, but he has stated that he was standing behind the deceased Bala Prasad and his attention was at Bala 9 Prasad. He further stated that at that time, accused Jagdish came from the front and fired on deceased. He has further denied that he did not see that bullet of whose gun deceased Bala Prasad. He has further denied that he was not present nearby the deceased or he had not seen appellant firing on deceased. He has further denied that he is telling lie that he had seen the appellant firing on deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve on this witness. Accordingly, this witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
18. Somnath Vaidya (PW/1) has produced himself to be an eye witnesses and stated that near trijunction of Wadipura, appellant was standing near deceased Bala Prasad and by taking out revolver, he fired on Bala Prasad, which hit on the stomach below navel of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that he had seen appellant Jagdish firing on deceased Bala Prasad by Katta. He has further stated that he had stated in police statement that he had seen the appellant Jagdish firing on deceased Bala Prasad and if this statement is not written in his police statement, he cannot say any reason for that. On perusal of police statement of this witness Ex.D/1, it is clear that he had stated that on hearing the sound of fire, he turned and saw that his brother deceased Bala Prasad was lying, which shows that he has not seen the actual incident of firing. Bablu alias Krishna Kumar Vaidya (PW/2) has also stated in his statement recorded before trial Court, that in the procession of Barat, deceased Bala Prasad was standing 10 and with him, Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4) was also standing with them. He further stated that at some distance, appellant was also standing. Jagdish Vaidya went near Bala Prasad and fired on him, which hit Bala Prasad on the stomach below navel. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he had stated in police statement Ex. D/2 that he has seen the appellant Jagdish firing on Bala Prasad, if this statement has not been written in police statement Ex.D/2, he cannot say any reason. Perusal of his police statement Ex.D/2 reflects that in Part A to A, he has stated that when he was seeing dance and singing at that time, he saw that Bala Prasad fell down, then he reached near Bala Prasad and at the same time, appellant Jagdish Vaidya having Katta in his hand, fled away. He further stated that Bala Prasad told him that appellant Jagdish Vaidya has fired on him. On marshaling of his evidence, it becomes clear that he has not seen the actual firing by the appellant, but he was present on the spot and immediately when Bala Prasad fell down, reached near him and also saw appellant running away from the spot. He has denied in his cross-examination that he was not present on the spot.
19. Bhagwat Sharan Panda (PW/3), who is the father of girl whose marriage was going to be solemnized, Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Bhai Vaidya (PW/6) and Ritesh Dubey (PW/7) are not the eye witnesses, but they had reached on the spot and saw the deceased lying on earth in injured conditions. They had seen that blood was oozing from the injury, caused on stomach of 11 deceased Bala Prasad. Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Bhai Vaidya (PW/6) and Ritesh Dubey (PW/7) had seen the appellant running away from the spot. Thus, from the statement of Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4), who is an eye witness and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness, and from the statements of Somnath Vaidya(PW/1), Bablu alias Krishna Kumar Vaidya (PW/2), Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Bhai Vaidya (PW/6), Ritesh Dubey (PW/7), who were present on the spot and saw injured Bala Prasad immediately after the gun fire and injury caused on him, it is proved that the said gun injury on the stomach of deceased was caused by appellant by firing said Katta. Dashrath Singh Lodhi (PW/14) has deposed as eye witness and he has stated that he had seen the incident of firing by appellant, but in his cross-examination he has stated that he had seen the deceased after lying on the earth and then he rushed to the spot and thereafter he came to know that bullet injury has been caused to Bala Prasad. Thus, on considering the statements of witnesses specially Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4) being eye witness and other witnesses, namely, Somnath Vaidya(PW/1), Bablu alias Krishna Kumar Vaidya (PW/2), Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Bhai Vaidya (PW/6) & Ritesh Dubey (PW/7), who were present on the spot, reached near deceased immediately after the incident they had seen the accused running away from the spot of incident and reaching them, it is proved that gun shot injury had been caused by the appellant by firing said Katta on the deceased Bala Prasad and due to that injury, as has been proved by Dr. 12 Sachin Jain (PW/19), who has conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased, deceased died. Therefore, it is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant had committed the death of the deceased by causing gun shot injury by firing Katta on deceased.
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in Budelkhand region there is an old tradition to shoot fire from the guns during Barat procession in the Barat ceremony. He further submits that first fire from the pistol was upward in the air shows that there was no intention to cause harm to anyone, but second fire was only an accident due to pushing and there was no any intention to kill or harm anyone. He further submitted that it is a case of a death due to negligence in handling the Katta. But, the appellant has not taken defence that the death of deceased was an accidental death. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has taken defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. But, any enmity has not been proved by the defence or appellant.
21. It has been argued before us that all witnesses related to occurrence of incident examined by prosecution are relatives of the deceased. Thus, they are interested witnesses and have not stated true facts before the Court and thus their statements should be entirely disbelieved. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. The deceased was attacked by accused/ appellant in presence of his brother and family 13 members. They were present on the spot during the occurrence of incident because of procession of marriage of their relatives and thus there presence on spot was not unnatural and it was but natural for the prosecution to produce Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4) and other witnesses of the spot as main witness and they have been believed by the trial Court. No serious attempt has been made and in fact nothing appears from the record to show that said eye witnesses were not present on the spot. In Dharnidhar Vs. State of U.P. [(2010) 7 SCC 759], it has been observed that :
"There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. Of Pondicherry [(2010) 1 SCC 199], this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under :
"We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but he court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim."14
Thus, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is liable to be rejected.
22. Other contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the commission of the crime, and in absence of clear and emphatic motive, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant is entitled to acquittal.
23. No doubt, motive of murder has not been proved, but looking to the clear evidence of eye witness specially Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4), statements of other witnesses who rushed to the spot immediately after the incident and saw running away the appellant, deceased in injured condition and also the incriminating circumstances as discussed herein above, proof of motive to establish the case of prosecution is not necessary. In any case, it is not always necessary for the prosecution to establish a definite motive for the commission of the crime. In the case of Dharnidhar (supra), it has been observed that :
"It will always be relatable to the facts and circumstances of a given case. It will not be correct to say as an absolute proposition of law, that the existence of a strong or definite motive is a sine qua non to holding an accused guilty of a criminal offence. It is not correct to say that absence of motive essentially results in the acquittal of an accused if he is otherwise found to be guilty. In the case of Babu Lodhi Vs. State of U.P. [(1987) 2 SCC 352], this Court took the view that in so far as the adequacy of motive is concerned, it is not a matter which can 15 be accurately weighed on the scales of a balance. In Prem Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(1995) 3 SCC 228], the Court discussed the concept of motive as applicable to Indian criminal jurisprudence and held as under :
"5...........The Courts below have concurrently held that the motive suggested by the prosecution against the accused persons is established. When there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court. It is true that this Court has held in State of U.P. Vs. Moti Ram [(1990) 4 SCC 389] that in a case where the prosecution party and the accused party were in animosity on account of series of incidents over a considerable length of time, the motive is a double-edged weapon and the key question for consideration is whether the prosecution had convincingly and satisfactorily established the guilt of all or any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by letting in reliable and cogent evidence. Very often, a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability that the offence was committed by the person who was prompted by the motive. In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. We hold that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. It is a very relevant, and important aspect - (a) to highlight the intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating the totality of the circumstances including the evidence disclosed in the case. The relevance of motive and the importance or value to be given to it are tersely stated by Shamsul Hauda in delivering the Tagore Law Lectures (1902) - The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India at page 176, as follows :
"But proof of the existence of a motive is 16 not necessary for a conviction for any offence. But where the motive is proved it is evidence of the evil intent and is also relevant to show that the person who had the motive to commit a crime actually committed, it, although such evidence alone would not ordinarily be sufficient. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact."
However, in cases which are entirely or mainly based upon and rest on circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or significance (Babu Lodhi and Prem Kumar's case (supra). But, it is equally true that when positive evidence against the accused is clear in relation to the offence, motive is not of much importance. Mere absence of motive, even if assumed, will not per se entitle the accused to acquittal, if otherwise, the commission of the crime is proved by cogent and reliable evidence State of Punjab Vs. Kuljit Singh [2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 629]. Significance of relevancy of motive would primarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case."
Thus, we find that this contention raised on behalf of the appellant is also liable to be rejected.
24. It is not a case in which the act was done in the course of sudden and free fight or scuffle. It would not fall under exception of Section 300 of I.P.C. Intention is a subjective element which is not ex facie present in any conduct in all cases, circumstances, surrounding the culpable homicide may lead to the inference that accused intended to cause death. Every sane person must be presumed to intend the result that his action normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body and death occurs as a result of the blow or blows inflicted by him, the intention of the 17 accused was no other than to take the life of his victim and offence committed by him amounted to murder. Accordingly, prosecution has proved that appellant has committed murder of deceased Bala Prasad by gun shot.
25. Now the question for our consideration is whether appellant was in an unauthorised possession of fire arm (Katta) ?
26. Eye witness of the incident Mahendra Kumar Dubey (PW/4) has stated that at the time ofincident appellant was having Kattna. Other witnesses, namely, Somnath Vaidya(PW/1), Bablu alias Krishna Kumar Vaidya (PW/2), Videsh Vaidya (PW/5), Nanhe Bhai Vaidya (PW/6) & Ritesh Dubey (PW/7) have stated that they had seen the appellant running away from the spot with Katta towards field. Later on, Shri Ram Sirothia (PW/8) has stated that he has seen in his field near the well, one Bunyan, one shirt, one mobile, one pistol, one magzine are lying. He further submits that he had informed the police and thereafter police came there and seized the aforesaid articles vide Ex.P/8. Lattu Prasad Upadhyay (PW/12) has also supported the statement of Shri Ram Sirothia (PW/8) and stated that above articles have been seized in his presence. S.H.O. Santosh Kumar Dixit (PW/20) has also supported the statements of these witnesses and stated that vide seizure memo Ex.P/10, he had seized the aforesaid articles before these witnesses. He has further stated that seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar vide memo Ex.P/27 and reports of F.S.L., have been received vide Ex.P/29 and Ex.P/30. As per report 18 of F.S.L., Ex.P/30 the seized Katta is a country made pistol, which is made for firing 7.65 mm caliber pistol cartridge and at the time of examination that pistol was in running condition, whereas in its barrel, after firing ash was present.
27. Khet Singh Dhurve (PW/21) has stated that he was posted as Armorer, Police Lines Sagar and he had examined he country made pistol of 12 bore and found that firing pin and trigger action mechanism were in working condition. In barrel, carbon was present, which had shown that fire was made by that pistol. Naveen Kumar Jain (PW/17) has stated that on 15.6.2011, he was posted in the office of District Magistrate, Sagar, as Arms Clerk. On receiving the letter of Superintendent of Police Sagar, along with concerned arm, which was said to be of accused Jagdish, the said firearm was examined. On perusal of records, it was found that there was no license in the name of said accused and thereafter permission to prosecute the appellant vide order Ex.P/15 was given, which was signed by District Magistrate Dr. E. Ramesh Kumar, before him. He knows his signature. His statement has not been challenged and contradicted in cross-examination.
28. No doubt that said firearm has been seized from the field on the information of owner of that field not from the possession of appellant. But, as it has been discussed above that appellant was seen by the witnesses running away from the spot, having Katta towards field, some witnesses chased him, but he fled 19 away from the spot and thereafter on the information of the field owner arms and above cloths were seized from the open field. Appellant was also seen firing with the Katta. All these evidence and circumstances show that the seized Katta and cloths were of accused-appellant. Before prosecuting the appellant under Section 25 (1)(1- B) (A) and 27 of Arms Act, permission was taken from the competent Authority District Magistrate Sagar and it is proved that said Katta was kept by the appellant without having any authorised licence and, accordingly, the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B) (A) and 27 of Arms Act is proved against the appellant. As such, learned trial Court has rightly sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
29. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant killed deceased Bala Prasad, there is no reason to accept the appeal filed by the appellant. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and Sec. 25(1)(1-B) (A) and 27of Arms Act. So far as sentence is concerned, for offence under Section 302 of IPC, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, which is the minimum, therefore, there is no need to discuss any more on the question of sentence.
28. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S.K.GANGELE) (H.P. SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.