1

             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

J U D G M E N T

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

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.