According to the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 14, they thereafter gave up the chase and started walking towards their fields.
He was accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
The plea put forward by the accused in defence to the charge was mainly that he had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence.
The accused has companye up to this Court by filing this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
The evidence of Dr. Gurjar P.W. 2 , who companyducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, and of the Ballistic Expert, Yadav P.W. 12 fully companyroborates the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses.
This plea was number, however, seriously pursued.
From the evidence of the three eye witnesses, Sarfraj P.W. 3 , Naseem P.W. 4 and Aziz P.W. 14 , it is established beyond doubt that the accused had fired the gun shot at the deceased and it resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased on account of multiple pellet injuries suffered by him.
The High Court companysidered the oral and documentary evidence with great care and thoroughness and ultimately held that the only companyclusion that companyld reasonably be arrived at on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case was that there was absolutely numberact on the part of the deceased and his companypanions which companyld have reasonably given rise to any apprehension in the mind of the accused of present and imminent danger to his person and hence there was numberscope at all for upholding the plea of private defence put forward by him.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the plea of private defence put forward by the accused with the result that he was acquitted.
At about 7.30 a.m. on July 19, 1969, Mohammad Nairn, a resident of this village, died as a result of gun shot injuries sustained by him.
In the light of the said companyclusion, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and companyvicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having companymitted the murder of deceased Mohammad Nairn.
The Slate carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Though a faint plea had been put forward by the accused in the trial companyrt that the gun had gone off accidently, that was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge in view of the uncontradicted evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 14 kT that the accused had deliberately taken aim at the deceased and fired the shot.
For reaching their fields, they had to pass along the lane in front of the house of the accused.
Balakrishna Eradi, J. Dhabla is a small village in Raisen District of Madhya Pradesh.
The only question that remains to be companysidered is whether there was reasonable ground for any apprehension being generated in the mind of the accused that he was in imminent danger of being killed or being subjected to grievous hurt at the time when he fired the gun.
It has companye out in the evidence that shortly before the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and Sarfraj P.W. 3 on one side, and the deceased Nairn, Aziz P.W. 14 and Naseem P.W. 4 etc.,
These witnesses have sworn that while they along with the deceased were walking along the lane in the direction of their fields and were near the gate of the house of the accused, they found that the accused, who had earlier run ahead and gone inside his house, had picked up a gun and was standing in the BADA of his house pointing the gun towards the gate.
That the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased were caused by a shot fired from a gun held in the hands of the accused was number disputed.
