JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF U P — 1996 DIGILAW 805 (ALL)

N. S. GUPTA, J. Shri R. R. Jatav, the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamipur vide his judgment and order dated 11- 6-1980 had convicted the accused appellant Jaswant Singh under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentence him to undergo R. I. for a period of three years on the basis of allegation of the prosecution to the effect that the accused appellant was responsible for causing injury by men of a country made pistol to Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh PW 1 on 28th November, 19/5 at about 7. 00 a. m. in village Bhabhaura, P. S. Surerpur, district Hamirpur with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act Shiv Bahadur Singh would died the accused appellant would have been guilty of murder. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgmet and order, the accused appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. I have heard Sri V. R. Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Shri Lal Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the accused appellant and the injured Shiv Bahadur Sing were all young boys. The accused appellant had no motive for causing injury to Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh. It was argued that probably it was an inadvertent and unintentional act because of which the fire in question was made and injury to the injured was caused. It was further argued that the accused appellant was a young lad of about 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence. A period of 20 years has since elapsed since after the occurrence of this case and the sentence of period undergone by the accused appellant during the trial be considered as sufficient punishment. 4. I have given my thoughtful considerasion to the submission made by the barned counsel for the accused appellant. I find from the record of the case that the accused appellant was medically examined by Dr. T. D. Singh, PW 5. The following injury was found on the person of the injured:- injury of Shiv Bahadur Singh, injured.- (1) Gun shot wound of bullet injury, inverted and lacerated, margin 2-1/2 cm. x 2-1/2 cm. I find from the record of the case that the accused appellant was medically examined by Dr. T. D. Singh, PW 5. The following injury was found on the person of the injured:- injury of Shiv Bahadur Singh, injured.- (1) Gun shot wound of bullet injury, inverted and lacerated, margin 2-1/2 cm. x 2-1/2 cm. X bone deep on the outer aspect of the right thigh upper 1/3 region. Blood Ooozes on fresh. 5. According to the evidence of Dr. T. D. Singh the injury in question could have been caused by means of a country made pistol on the date and time of the occurrence. 6. Three witnesses of fact viz. Shiv Bahadur Singh, PW 1, Sugrive Singh, PW 2 and Balbir Singh, PW 3 were examined before the court below. It is clearly established from the evidence of these three witnesses of fact and also the medical evidence of Dr. p1. D. Singh that the afore said gun shot injury was caused to the injured Shiv Bahadur Singh by the accused appellant on the date time and place of occurrence suggested by the prosecution. 7. I should state here that according to the statement of the injured Shiv Bahadur Singh himself there was no previous enmity in between him and the accused appellant. Shiv Bahadur Singh injured stated that when alongwith the accused appellant and his brother Baibir and Sugrive he reached at the fields, the accused appellant took out his tamancha from his pocket and asked to assault the injured. Thereupon the injured said as to why appellant would assault him, the accused appellant opened fire and caused the injury in question. No. X-ray examination report was filed before the Court below. Dr. T. D. Singh, PW 5 has not stated in his statement on oath before the court below that the injury in question could have proved fatal. 8. It would thus be seen that there being no prior enmity in between the accused appellant and the injured and that it was all of a sudden that the accused appellant said to assault. On asking the injured as why the accused appellant would assault him, the accused appellant opened fife, the intention of the accused appellant in causing injury to the injured were to cause only hurt and not to commit the murder of the injured. 9. On asking the injured as why the accused appellant would assault him, the accused appellant opened fife, the intention of the accused appellant in causing injury to the injured were to cause only hurt and not to commit the murder of the injured. 9. Keeping in view the seat of injury, the dimension of the injury and the manner and circumstances in which the injury was caused, I find that only a case punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. stands proved against the accused appellant. 10. The learned counsel for the accused appellant argued that after a period of 20 years of the occurrence it would not be in the interest of justice to send the accused appellant behind bars, the accused appellant should be let off on the basis of the period undergone by him, which was one month and four days. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the sentence of period undergone by the accused appellant and a fine of Rs. 0,000 would meet the ends of justice. It is directed that the accused appellant shall deposit the fine within a period of two months from the date of this order. If he so deposits the fine, a sum of Rs. 2,500 shall be given to the injured Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh as compensation and if the accused appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid fine, it is directed that he shall undergo R. I. for a period of three months. 12. With these observations the appeal is disposed of. 13. Let the record of this case alongwith a copy of this order be sent to the court below for need full compliance. Appeal disposed of. .