Shyam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010

SHYAM SHARMA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. The appellant-Shyam Sharma has called in question the

legality and correctness of the judgment in Criminal Appeal

No.190 of 1999, dated 19th January, 2007 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2017.10.04 15:01:27 IST Reason: 2

whereby the judgment dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Sessions

Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 379/1996 has been affirmed.

2. The Appellant-Shyam Sharma was convicted by the Sessions

Judge, under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo

three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-

and in the event of default in payment of fine, he was directed to

further undergo additional imprisonment of five months.

3. The contention of Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel,

appearing for the appellant, is that the independent witnesses

Anoop Bhargava (PW-1) and Ramprakash (PW-4) did not support

the prosecution case. Manjeet Singh (PW-3) is an interested

witness. The appellant is a computer engineer and has no

criminal background. At the most, the appellant can be convicted

under Section 324 of the IPC. On the other hand, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the

judgment of the High Court.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on

record. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 3

appellant, both Anoop Bhargava (PW-1) and Ramprakash (PW-4)

have turned hostile. It was established that Manjeet Singh has

sustained gunshot injury. Dr. Vikram Singh Tomar (PW-2), on

examination, found two entry wounds over the lateral aspect of

left shoulder and interior aspect of upper part of left scapula

region of Manjeet Singh. However, firearm injury suffered by

Manjeet Singh (PW-3) could not be impeached in their

cross-examination. It is also evident that the accused fired at

Manjeet Singh without any pre-meditation. The injury suffered by

Manjeet Singh was not on the vital part of his body. In our view,

the prosecution has failed to prove that accused intended to

cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant can

only be convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and not under

Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, the appellant is convicted

under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 307 of the IPC.

5. The appellant has already been imprisoned for about four

months. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period 4

already undergone by the appellant-Shyam Sharma. Ordered

accordingly.

6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

….……………………..J. (R.K. AGRAWAL)

....………………………J. New Delhi (S. ABDUL NAZEER) October 4, 2017.