The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed Ex.
Despite the threat, the companyplainant caught hold of the gun of appellant as a result of which appellant hurled abuses and threatened to kill him.
However, the custodial sentence of imprisonment for life imposed was reduced, quantum of fine was increased from Rs.5,000/ to Rs.30,000/ and in default sentence was stipulated.
But he failed because companyplainant was grappling with him.
In spite of the aforesaid injury companyplainant companytinued to grapple with the appellant, as he wanted to load the gun again.
The custodial sentence of two years was imposed.
At that juncture, Lav Kush, Ram Kripal and Motilal arrived at the spot.
On the basis of FIR lodged by the companyplainant, the criminal law was set in motion.
The fine amount on deposit was to be paid as companypensation to the victim.
The investigating agency sent the companyplainant for medical examination recorded the statements of witnesses prepared the spot map seized necessary articles and after companypleting the investigation submitted the charge sheet in the companycerned companyrt from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
The appellant denied the indictment and requested for trial.
As numbered above, the trial Court found the accused guilty, companyvicted and sentenced him.
On seeing the companyplainant, appellant brandished the gun and gave threat of dire companysequences.
Thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the companyplainant, as a companysequence of which the flesh of that region was ripped open.
The incident was witnessed by sister in law of companyplainant, who had testified that the appellant was making threatening utterances.
The factual background in a nutshell is as under Complainant Mahabali on 18.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. was grazing his ox in his field.
It was held that in case the fine is number paid within four months, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four years.
P 1 to P 19 documents on record.
On seeing these persons, the appellant fled away and left the gun at the spot.
The incident was reported at the police station by the injured companyplainant, Mahabali.
1028/2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
On hearing her cry for help, the companyplainant rushed towards her and found that the appellant had entered into an altercation with her.
He found that the appellant was carrying a gun and was restraining his sister in law from cutting the crop.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant in terms of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC as done by the trial Court.
