JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner along with his son Sukhdevsingh was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sriganganagar under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under his judgment dated 19-6-76, found him guilty under both the counts. Under the former count, he was sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment and of fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. Under the latter count, he was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. There was a long standing enmity between the accused petitioner on the one hand and Karnalsingh PW 1 on the other. The house of Karnal Singh PW 1 and the house of Jangirsingh are in the same lane and Jangir Singh used to abuse him. It is alleged that on October 10, 1973, at about 2.30 p.m., when Karnalsingh PW 1 was returning from the field to his house, accused petitioner Jangirsingh met him and at that time Jangirsingh was under the influence of alcohol. He abused Karnailsingh at which Karnailsingh asked him not to do so. It is alleged that Jangirsingh accused petitioner gave out that he will continue abusing him and he cannot stop him. When Karnailsingh also abused, the accused petitioner, it is alleged, the accused petitioner told him to teach a lesson. Karnailsingh went to his house and went to inform about the incident to his brother Shersing who directed him to close the window that was open. It it alleged that when the window was closed, the accused petitioner fired and though the pallets did not directly hit Karnailsingh, he received injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by Karnailsingh PW 1 at police station Sadulshahar on the same day at about 8.10 p.m., the distance of the police station is 14 miles. The case was registered and the S.H.O. Bhagwansingh PW6 arrived on the spot and prepared site-plan. Injured Karnailsingh was sent for medical examination and Dr. A report of the incident was lodged by Karnailsingh PW 1 at police station Sadulshahar on the same day at about 8.10 p.m., the distance of the police station is 14 miles. The case was registered and the S.H.O. Bhagwansingh PW6 arrived on the spot and prepared site-plan. Injured Karnailsingh was sent for medical examination and Dr. Bahadursingh PW5 found that there was a linear lacerated wound 1/2 x ⅛" nail deep right ring-finger nail cut through and through in its lateral margin upto the tip of finger and another linear lacerated wound 1" x ⅓" x skin deep left hand middle finger obliquely starting from first web space and reaching upto the middle of first phallinx. Both the injuries were simple. The accused was tried and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 on the Code of Criminal Procedure and the plea of the accused was of bare denial. He set up a case that ten bighas of land has been given by Karnailsingh to Palasingh witness. Karnailsingh and Shersingh are against him and one case has been filed earlier in which the police gave a final report. Thus, he stands on a bare plea of denial. The accused examined Harphool-singh and Mukhsingh in dependence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and his son Sukhdev Singh was acquitted. The appeal of the accused petitioner was also dismissed. 3. The contention of Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the entire case is false. A similar type of case was lodged earlier but the police found it a false case and lodged a final report. He submits that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and both the courts have, therefore, wrongly placed reliance on their statements. It is further contended that so far as the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is concerned, it is not made out because the gun which is said to have been fired and which has not been connected with the offence, was a licenced gun and it cannot, therefore, be said that the accused was in possession of it intending to use it for unlawful purpose. 4. 4. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and it appears that the learned courts below have discussed their evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the accused did fire twice. There are no such circumstances available in the evidence of these witnesses about which it can be said that they were not taken into consideration by the courts below and as such, the courts below could not have arrived at the finding which they have arrived at. The case of the prosecution rests on four witnesses, namely, Karnailsingh PW 1, Shersingh PW 3 who are brothers, Palasingh PW 3, and Pritamsing PW 4. It cannot be disputed any longer that there was enmity between Karnailsingh on the one hand and the accused petitioner on the other which was going on for the last many years. Though Karnailsingh PW 1 and Shersingh PW 2 are real brothers and Palasingh PW 3 is their servant but the learned trial court and the learned lower appellate court took these facts into consideration, scrutinised their evidence and has placed reliance on them. Pritamsingh PW 4 is also a distant relation of Karnail Singh and he has stated that Karnailsingh is his uncle The report of the incident was lodged without any delay and it appears from the perusal of the first information report Ex. PI that it was lodged at 8.15 p.m. on the date of the incident. The incident took place at about 1.30 p.m. The distance of the police station is 14 miles. The name of Palasingh PW 3 and Pritamsingh PW 4 as eye-witnesses of the occurrence is also contained in the report Ex. P1. That apart, the site was inspected by Bhagwansingh PW 6, the then investigating officer on the next day of the incident and he noticed that there were pallets in the window frame which was wooden. He also noticed that an iron bar of the window was also damaged; Raghwansingh took in possession the pallets from the window frame. It can, therefore, be said that the presence of pallets in the wooden frame also lends credence to the prosecution story. It can, therefore, be further said that the accused did fire from a distance of about 100 feet. He so fired through the window in which Karnail Singh PW 1 and his brother Shersingh were there. It can, therefore, be said that the presence of pallets in the wooden frame also lends credence to the prosecution story. It can, therefore, be further said that the accused did fire from a distance of about 100 feet. He so fired through the window in which Karnail Singh PW 1 and his brother Shersingh were there. It has come in the evidence of Bhagwansingh that the window is visible from the place where the accused is said to have fired. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the finding of the courts that the accused fired, is correct. 5. The question is as to whether on the finding which has been arrived at by the courts below, an offence under Section 336, IPC is made out. 6. It is not disputed that the gun which is said to have been fired by the accused petitioner is a licenced gun. The essential ingredients of Section 27, Arms Act, are (1) the accused should be in possession of any arm of ammunition and (2) he should be in possession with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to enable any person to use the same for any unlawful purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is made out. 7. The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 336,IPC are that an act should be done by the accused rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. It is contended by the learned advocate for the accused petitioner that the charge against the accused was that he intentionally in order to cause the death of Karnailsingh, fired at him and as and when an accused does an act intentionally, he cannot be said to do so rashly or negligently. He has referred to Kala Bhika Baria v. State (AIR 1966 Bombay 13) wherein it has been observed as follows,- "Where a person commits a wanton or dangerous act with the knowledge that it is so and he commits it without knowing that it may probably cause injury or without the intention of causing it will be a rash act. He has referred to Kala Bhika Baria v. State (AIR 1966 Bombay 13) wherein it has been observed as follows,- "Where a person commits a wanton or dangerous act with the knowledge that it is so and he commits it without knowing that it may probably cause injury or without the intention of causing it will be a rash act. In such a case the person committing the act does not know that the result of his recklessness or negligence may probably cause injury to somebody, and he never intends that such an injury would be caused. When a person is negligent as to the consequence of his act and there is a failure on his part to take reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury to somebody else, it is an intentional act done with consideration and cannot, therefore, be a rash and negligent act." In that case, the case of the prosecution was that the accused intentionally threw a stone at the complainant and prior to it, the accused had abused the complainant. It was held that the act of the accused was intentional and cannot be said to be an act undertaken rashly or negligently. 8. It has come in the evidence that the window was visible from the place from where the accused is said to have fired. It has also come in the evidence that when Karnailsing went to the window to close it, then the accused fired at him. It can, therefore, be said that the accused intentionally fired to hurt Karnailsingh. As already stated earlier, any act which is intentional cannot be said to have been done negligently or rashly. The accused was not charged under Section 307, IPC. A person fires intentionally at somebody, then the person so firing may be charged under Section 307 IPC dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, on the material on record, I am unable to uphold the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused cannot be said to have acted rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Thus, on the material on record, I am unable to uphold the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused cannot be said to have acted rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. The matter might have been different if the accused would have fired recklessly whoever might be in the room but when the accused intentionally fires at a person standing near the window, he cannot be said to have acted rashly or negligently. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act and 336 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and he is acquitted of the same. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds.Revision Allowed. *******