Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandu @ Narendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia, Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058
1
CRA No.2301 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2301 of 2005
NANDU @ NARENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 04.09.2024
Pronounced on : 16.10.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Vishal Mishra, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.65 of 2003 whereby the appellant stood convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 2 CRA No.2301 of 2005
2. One of the accused namely Rajendra died during treatment during the trial. Therefore, the trial was abated as against Rajendra as is reflected in para 2 of the impugned judgment. Co-accused Jainu @ Jainendra and Geeta Bai have been acquitted vide impugned judgment.
3. The prosecution story, in short, may be summarized as under :
(i) On 19.12.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., when the complainant Roop Singh @ Ram Singh (PW1) was going to attend the court proceedings at Gadarwara, the appellant along with co-accused came from the bushes armed with weapon and during course of which, tried to stop him from going to attend court proceedings and thereafter, the appellant fired a gunshot through his katta (country made pistol) which hit the stomach of Roop Singh causing gunshot injury to him.
(ii) Accordingly, an FIR vide Ex.P/12 was registered at Police Station Saikheda District Narsinghpur at Crime No.148 of 2001 in respect of the offences under Sections 341 and 307/34 of IPC against four accused persons namely Rajendra Sharma, Jainendra Sharma, Nandu @ Narendra Sharma and Geeta Bai. It is alleged that the incident has taken place owing to the previous enmity between the parties. On the basis of complaint made by Roop Singh, the FIR was got registered.
(iii) On the same day i.e. 19.12.2001, the injured Roop Singh was sent for medical examination. A gunshot wound was noticed over his epigastrium in midline surrounded by abraded area and small superficial marks of pallets 6 cm over Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 3 CRA No.2301 of 2005 left side, 3 on right side of wound present with omental prolapse with peritoneal cavity wound directing forward right side size 3 x 2 cm. The injury was found to be grievous in nature.
(iv) During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded; spot map was prepared and accused-appellant was apprehended. Pellets and bloodstained cloth were seized, and they were sent for FSL Sagar. Weapon of offence i.e. 12-bore gun was seized from the possession of the appellant. The dying declaration of the injured was got recorded in terms of Ex.P/7.
(v) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.
4. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. It was asserted that a counter case with respect to same incident was registered at Crime No.147 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 294, 323 and 506B of IPC but consequent to death of brother of appellant namely Rajendra during the course of medical treatment on 22.12.2001, an offence under Section 302 of IPC was added against the complainant party. Against which, separate appeals are filed being CRA No.2360 of 2005, CRA No.2405 of 2005 and CRA No.30 of 2006 which are being decided by a separate judgment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 4 CRA No.2301 of 2005
5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including complainant Roop Singh (PW1), Jagdish Gujur (PW2), Mohan Thakur (PW3), Ghanshyam (PW4), Madhav Prasad (PW5), ASI B.M. Mishra (PW6), H.C. Narayan Prasad Shrivastava (PW7), Dr. N.K. Bajpai (PW8), Investigating Officer Virendra Bilthare (PW9), ASI R.B. Tiwari (PW10) and Dr. Ashutosh Sisodiya (PW11) and exhibited number of documents. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for committing attempt to murder of Roop Singh @ Ram Singh and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been challenged inter alia on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that the complainant party was the aggressor and they assaulted the appellant and his brother Rajendra and as a result of injuries, Rajendra died. That, on a report of Rajendra, a dehati nalishi vide Ex.D/13C was recorded against Roop Singh, Jagdish, Mohan Singh, Ghanshyam, Komal, Rishi Kumar, Arjun Singh and Vijay Singh. Statement of deceased was also recorded in terms of Ex.D/14. On the basis of which an FIR was got registered at Crime No.147 of 2001 at Police Station Saikheda District Narsinghpur in respect of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 294, 323 and 506B of IPC against as many as eight accused persons namely Roop Singh Gujur, Rishi Gujur, Ghanshyam Gujar, Komal, Jagdish Gujar, Vijay Gujar, Arjun Gujar and Mohan Singh. They all in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 5 CRA No.2301 of 2005 CRA No.2360 of 2005, CRA No.2405 of 2005 and CRA No.30 of 2006 were convicted by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2005 for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of IPC.
7. It is contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly held that it is not a case of private defence of the appellant. On the date of incident, the complainant party brutally assaulted the appellant and his brother Rajendra (since deceased) in which the appellant survived but Rajendra succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that gunshot was fired by the appellant exercising the right of his private defence, as they were badly beaten by the complainant party for which an FIR was registered and Rajendra died in the incident. According to the learned counsel, on the facts and in the circumstances available on record, the case of right of private defence deserves to be accepted. He prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the offence.
8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence available with the prosecution against the appellant. Even if the right of private defence was exercised, the appellant has exceeded the same, therefore, he was rightly convicted. He has prayed for dismissal of appeal.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
10. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that two incidents have taken place on the same day i.e. 19.12.2001 for which two FIRs were registered; one by the complainant of this present case i.e. Roop Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 6 CRA No.2301 of 2005 i.e. Crime No.148 of 2001 at Police Station Saikheda District Narsighpur and the other by complainant Rajendra Kumar (since deceased) i.e. Crime No.147 of 2001 at Police Station Saikheda District Narsinghpur. In both the criminal cases, the accused persons were tried separately and in separate Sessions Trials and vide judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2005, the accused have been convicted. In the present case, only appellant i.e. Nandu @ Narendra Sharma has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and remaining accused Jainu @ Jainendra and Geeta Bai were acquitted of the charges. No appeal has been preferred against their acquittal order as stated by the State counsel. The other accused Rajendra has expired during trial and the proceedings initiated against him stood abated which is reflected from para 2 of the impugned judgment.
11. In the other case, against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2005 in S.T. No.120 of 2002, three criminal appeals have been filed being CRA No.2360 of 2005, CRA No.2405 of 2005 and CRA No.30 of 2006 by accused-Jagdish Prasad, Komal, Vijay Singh, Roop Singh, Ghanshyam, Mohan Singh, Rishi Kumar and Arjun Singh. The accused in cross-case are held guilty of committing murder of Rajendra and causing injuries to Narendra by means of lathis. They are held to be the aggressor. Their convictions as awarded by the trial Court are upheld.
12. In the present case i.e. Crime No.148 of 2001, the allegation against the present appellant and the other three accused is that while the complainant party was going to attend the court proceedings, they were hiding in the bushes and came out therefrom and stopped the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 7 CRA No.2301 of 2005 complainant Roop Singh and asked him not to go to the court to attend the court proceedings and record the depositions. On refusal for the same, the appellant-Nandu @ Narendra fired a gunshot from his 12- bore gun which hit the stomach of Roop Singh and caused pellets injuries to others. Therefore, the aforesaid FIR was registered. The defence which has been taken by the appellant in the present case is that the gunshot was fired in exercise of the right of private defence as the 8 accused persons armed with lathis have caused serious injuries to them which resulted into death of his brother Rajendra and injuries to the appellant-Nandu @ Narendra. There is eyewitness' count to the aforesaid effect.
13. Now, it is required to be seen whether the injury caused to complainant-Roop Singh was by a gunshot and whether the act of the appellant in firing the gunshot is for exercising his right of private defence or not.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh vs State of M.P. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 657 while discussing the nature and scope of right of private defence, has held as follows :
"59. In Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 257, it is stated that in order to find out whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered.
60. To put it pithily, the right of private defence is a defence right. It is neither a right of aggression or of reprisal. There is no right of private defence where there is no apprehension of danger. The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 8 CRA No.2301 of 2005 impending danger not of self-creation. Necessity must be present, real or apparent.
61. The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right of private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the State machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect himself and his property. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose. We may, however, hasten to add that the means and the force a threatened person adopts on the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine as to whether the means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not. Answer to such a question depends upon a host of factors like the prevailing circumstances at the spot, his feelings at the relevant time; the confusion and the excitement depending on the nature of assault on him, etc. Nonetheless, the exercise of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious. It would be repugnant to the very concept of private defence. (See. Dharam vs State of Haryana (2007) 15 SCC 241)."
15. The statement of injured Roop Singh @ Ram Singh (PW1) who was author of the FIR in the present case is important. He stated in his statement that on 19.12.2001 while he was going to attend the court proceedings at Gadarwara around 10-11 a.m., while he along with Mohan, Ghanshyam and Jagdish who were coming behind him, when they reached near Dhigsara and Surela, at that time, all of a sudden, Rajendra Kumar, Geeta Bai, Jainendra Kumar and Narendra came out of the bushes and Jainendra caught hold of his one hand and Rajendra caught hold of his another hand and Narendra who was standing at a Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 9 CRA No.2301 of 2005 distance of 5 feet and Geeta bai was standing beside and Narendra asked him not to go to the court to attend proceedings and not to give evidence and upon refusal by Roop Singh, Geeta Bai shouted to shoot him and at the relevant time, Narendra fired a gunshot from his gun which hit Roop Singh. Roop Singh was sent for medical examination and was examined by Dr N.K. Bajpai (PW8) who has found following injuries vide Ex.P/11A :
"Gunshot wound was noticed over his epigastrium in midline surrounded by abraded area and small superficial marks of pallets 6" over left side and 3 on right side of wound present with omental prolapse with peritoneal cavity deep wound directing forward right side Size 3 x 2 cm. Irregular in shape. Advised X-ray abdomen. Bleeding present."
16. The doctor has further observed that complainant Roop Singh was in a conscious state. His pulse was 76 and blood pressure was 110/76. No opinion was given regarding the injury and it was advised for X-ray examination. He also got recorded the statement of Roop Singh in the form of dying declaration vide Ex.P/4 considering the nature of injury. In his statement, he has further observed that after radiological examination, the report was received and it was found that there were pellets injuries in stomach of Roop Singh which is reflected from Ex.P/16 which is reads thus "Innumerable number of pallets seen in the area of abdomen which are at the area of right iliac fossa. Pallets are seen in the outer parts of abdomen also, more in number on right side".
17. It is further mentioned that Dr. N.K. Bajpai has not revealed the name of the person who has inflicted gunshot injury to him as it was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 10 CRA No.2301 of 2005 told by Roop Singh to him. Ex.P/4 is the statement of Roop Singh recorded in the form of dying declaration. In para 7 of his cross- examination, he categorically mentioned that the injury caused to Roop Singh could not have been from a distance of 5 feet. In the statement of Roop Singh, he categorically mentioned that the appellant-Nandu was standing at a distance of 5 feet from where he fired a gunshot. The injured Roop Singh made categorical statement that the gunshot was fired from a katta (country made pistol) whereas in the seizure memo, it is reflected that a small riffle was seized. Thus, there is material difference in the weapon which has been stated to be used in commission of the offence and the weapon that has been seized from the possession of the appellant-Nandu. From the perusal of MLC report given by the medical expert, it is clear that the injury to Roop Singh was caused by a gunshot.
18. Now it is required to be seen whether the said gunshot was fired by the appellant while exercising his right of private defence. The statement of the injured has already been discussed hereinabove. The statement of other witnesses i.e. Mohan (PW3), Ghanshyam (PW4) and Jagdish (PW2) are required to be seen who were going just behind Roop Singh to attend the court proceedings.
19. Jagdish Gujar (PW2) has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. He has specifically stated that he is not aware of the incident as well as the other incident for which the offence was registered under Section 302 of IPC against the complainant party. Mohan Thakur (PW3) has been declared hostile and he has also not supported the prosecution story and has given similar statement as that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 11 CRA No.2301 of 2005 of Jagdish Gujar (PW2). Ghanshyam (PW4) has been declared hostile. He has not supported the prosecution story and gave identical statement as that of Mohan Thakur (PW3). Thus, the sole witness of the incident is Roop Singh (PW1). The seizure witness Madhav Prasad (PW5) has declared hostile. He has specifically denied regarding handing over of the gun by appellant-Nandu from his house. In his cross-examination, 8-9 inch Katta was shown to him. He has denied the seizure of the same. It is pointed out by him that he was asked to sign the documents (Ex.P/8 and P/9) and without being aware of their contents, he signed those documents. If the statement of Roop Singh (PW1) is seen, then in his cross examination, he has admitted the fact of registration of criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against himself as well as and against Rishi, Ghanshyam, Komal, Jagdish, Vijay, Arjun and Mohan in which the death of Rajendra took place. The factum of previous enmity is also admitted by him.
20. Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC deal with the right of private defence of person and property. This right is based on two principles,
(i) it is available against the aggressor only, and (ii), the right is available only when the defender entertains reasonable apprehension. Moreover, in judging whether the accused has exceeded his right to private defence or not, the court has to take into account the weapons used particularly in a case of firing and the number of shots that were fired (See Madan Mohan Pandey vs State of U,P 1991 CrLJ 467 (SC). In such a case where it was not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff, because the truth and falsehood were so inextricably inter twined together, the prosecution Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 12 CRA No.2301 of 2005 was found to have failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it was held that the accused could not be said to have exceeded his right of private defence (Biri Singh vs State of U.P., 1992 CrLJ 1510 (SC) relied on).
21. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it is apparently clear that the factum of registration of two FIRs with respect to the same incident is admitted position in the present case. This Court has already considered the complainant Roop Singh of the present case who are accused in Crime No.147 of 2001 and the other accused to be the aggressor and found them guilty and accordingly affirmed the convictions as recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2005 passed in S.T. No.120 of 2002 by dismissing criminal appeals being CRA No.2360 of 2005, CRA No.2405 of 2005 and CRA No.30 of 2006. Therefore, the fact that the altercation took place and the complainant party being the aggressor inflicted 9 injuries to Rajendra (since deceased) and 14 injuries to Narendra. From the record, it is clear that one gunshot has been fired in the case by the weapon which has been carried by appellant-Narendra which is supported by the medical report. It was a 12-bore gun fired at Roop Singh, therefore, pellets injuries were found. Although the injury was caused to the vital part of the body but the fact remains that three eyewitnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. The entire case rests upon the statement of Roop Singh (PW1). He has not clarified the position that the appellant in a pinpointed manner aiming at the vital part of the body has fired the gunshot, coupled with the fact that appellant-Nandu has sustained as many as 14 injuries which are medically corroborated and inflicted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 13 CRA No.2301 of 2005 complainant party which is not disputed in the present case. The FIR of the cross-case is produced as Ex.D/13C in the present case.
22. Thus, it is apparently clear that there was no intention to cause injury by means of a firearm, rather the same has been inflicted in exercise of right of private defence. The complainant party being the aggressor inflicted 14 injuries to Narendra and 9 injuries to Rajendra resulting into his death and Narendra just to save himself has fired a gunshot. Section 96 of IPC says nothing is an offence which is committed in the exercise of the right of private defence. Therefore, the present case squarely falls under Section 96 of the IPC and it is only as a right of private defence that the injury was caused to the complainant.
23. There is a doubt with respect to recovery of firearm. In the statement of injured Roop Singh as well as three other eyewitnesses, it was pointed out that appellant-Narendra has fired from a country made pistol. The seizure of weapon shown by the prosecution is a katta which is Ex.P/9. The firearm was sent for examination to the forensic lab. The independent seizure witness has turned hostile. The three eyewitness' count is not supporting the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, there is a doubt with respect to the gunshot being fired by the weapon which was carried by the appellant.
24. ASI Virendra Birthare (PW9) who is the investigating officer has specifically admitted the fact regarding registration of cross case against the complainant party for the incident said to have place on 19.12.2001 wherein appellant Narendra and his Rajendra were badly injured and Rajendra succumbed to the injuries. The document pertaining to injuries of Narendar and Rajendra were filed in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 14 CRA No.2301 of 2005 present case as Ex.D/3 and Ex.D/5C respectively which were duly proved by Head Constable Narayan Prasad (PW7). Thus, the aforesaid aspect could not have been disputed by the complainant party. Under these circumstances, it is clearly established that the gunshot fired by the appellant is while exercising the right of private defence.
25. The record indicates that presence of accused-appellant and the complainant on the place of incident is not disputed in either case. It is a specific case of the accused-appellant that while he along with his brother Rajendra (since dead) was going to attend the court for recording their depositions in a criminal case registered against the complainant party, they were stopped and were badly beaten by the complainant party. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with in detail by this Court in cross appeals being CRA No.2360 of 2005, CRA No.2405 of 2005 and CRA No.30 of 2006 wherein the impugned convictions are affirmed. This Court has recorded a finding with respect to the fact that the accused in the cross appeals were aggressor. There are as many as 9 injuries found on the body of the appellant-Nandu @ Narendra as is reflected from Ex.D/5C which are not explained by the prosecution in the present case.
26. In the case of Parshuram vs State of M.P. : Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2021 decided on 03.11.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, a cross case was also registered against the complainant party for the injuries sustained by the accused person.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 15 CRA No.2301 of 2005
27. As regards trial of the cross-cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.T. Mydeen vs The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department vide Criminal Appeal No.1306 of 2021 decided on 29.10.2021 has held as follows :
25. So far as the law for trial of the cross cases is concerned, it is fairly well settled that each case has to be decided on its own merit and the evidence recorded in one case cannot be used in its cross case. Whatever evidence is available on the record of the case only that has to be considered. The only caution is that both the trials should be conducted simultaneously or in case of the appeal, they should be heard simultaneously. However, we are not concerned with cross-
cases but are concerned with an eventuality of two separate trials for the commission of the same offence (two complaints for the same offence) for two sets of accused, on account of one of them absconding.
28. In view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid cases, analysis of the evidence is to be done separately and minutely. Except the statement of complainant Roop Singh (PW1), the other so-called eyewitnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even if the deposition of complainant Roop Singh (PW1) is taken into consideration as it is, he has not commented upon the injuries sustained to the appellant in the same incident. The fact that the incident is common is not disputed in the present case. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant who was badly injured was having any intention to cause gunshot injury on the complainant Roop Singh. However, the record reveals that only one gunshot was fired from the gun which has been seized from appellant's possession just to save himself from the assault made by the complainant party. It cannot be said that the appellant has exceeded the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 11:32:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51058 16 CRA No.2301 of 2005 right of private defence. Had it been a condition, then the appellant could have fired repeated gunshots and caused fatal injuries to the complainant party. That is not the scenario in the case in hand. Under these circumstances, we arrive at a conclusion that the gunshot was fired by the appellant exercising the right of private defence.
29. In view of the foregoing and in the overall circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the alleged offence. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction.
30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.65 of 2003 is hereby set aside. The appellant - Nandu @ Narendra Sharma is acquitted of the offence. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by him shall be refunded to him.
31. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court be sent to the court concerned for information and necessary compliance.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) (VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-10-2024
11:32:28