Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1406 (RAJ)

Hetram v. State of Rajasthan

2000-11-28

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.12.83 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 33/81 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge While acquitting both the accused appellants of offenced under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C., convicted each of the accused for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced each of them to undergo 2 years' R.I. and a fine of 500/- in default to further undergo 6 months' R.I. 2. It may be stated here that by the same judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 3rd accused Ramkumar of all the charges framed against him. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal in short are as under : (i) On 29.8.81, an oral information was received by P.W. 17 Bhopal Singh at the Police Station Bhirani, Dist. Sriganganagar to the effect that on the previous day at about 5.15 p.m., he was sitting on Chabutra near the Hotel Dabri and there his younger brother Prem and Kashi Ram were also sitting and P.W. 11 Jagdish S/o Chetaram (Injured) was also sitting and another persons P.W. 7 Jagdish, P.W. 12 Om Prakash, and P.W. 8 Lilu were also there. At that time, both the accused appellants and the accused Ram Kumar came there and thereafter accused appellant Vinod shot fire on P.W. 11 Jagdish S/o Chetaram with his Pistol and after that shot, P.W. 11 Jagdish S/O Chetaram fell on the ground and at that time accused appellant Hetram abetted by saying that the enemy was sitting there and he be killed. After this incident, Lilu Ram P.W. 8, Jagdish P.W. 7, Omprakash P.W. 12 made hue and cry and accused appellant Vinod was caught hold of by PW. 8 Lilu and accused appellant Hetram fired from his gun and thereafter P.W. 11 was taken to the hospital and was got medically examined and after usual investigation, a challan was filed against the three accused persons. (ii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.7.82 framed charges for offences under sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against both the accused appellants and Ram Kumar who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (ii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.7.82 framed charges for offences under sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against both the accused appellants and Ram Kumar who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (iii) During the course of trial, 18 witnesses were produced by the to prosecution and many documents were got exhibited and thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (iv) After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 9.12.83 acquitted Ram Kumar of all the charges framed against him. Both the accused appellants were also acquitted of offences under Section 307 and 307/34 I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced them for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 as stated above. (v) Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of accused appellants that since the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that no case for offence under Section 307 and 307/34 I.PC. is made out against the accused appellants and therefore, findings of conviction against the accused appellants for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 are erroneous and there is no evidence for that also. Therefore, both the accused appellants be acquitted of this charge also. On the contrary, the learned P.P. has opposed a arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and learned P.P. and perused the record. 6. At part 11 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the following findings : (i) That all the witnesses in the present case have been declared hostile and all have stated that accused appellants were not present at the time of firing and have also denied the fact that the accused appellant Hetram was having a gun and accused appellant Vinod was having a pistol at that time. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that these accused appellants fired at P.W. 11 Jagdish S/o Cheta Ram. Hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both these accused appellants of the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. 7. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that these accused appellants fired at P.W. 11 Jagdish S/o Cheta Ram. Hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both these accused appellants of the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. 7. Thus from the above findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that there is no evidence in the present case to hold that these two accused appellants fired towards P.VV. 11 Jagdish S/o Cheta Ram.Case of Accused Appellant Vinod Kumar for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case of prosecution against him is that he used pistol by which he caused injuries to the person of P.W. 11 Jagdish S/o Cheta Ram and Fard by which this pistol was seized is Ex. P/6 and motbir witnesses to this Fard are P.W. 1 Sadul Singh and P.W. 4 Prem Singh. Both have been declared hostile and scribe of this Fard is PW. 3 Sevak Singh. P.W. 3 Sevak Singh states that he was given pistol by PW. 8 Lilu and he was also told by P.W. 8 Lilu that the accused appellant Vinod used this pistol. Prosecution has also produced PW. 8 Lilu who has been declared hostile and he does not say likewise. Thus, there is no evidence to connect that the pistol in question was used by the accused appellant Vinod Kumar and there is also no evidence that the same has been recovered from him. Thus, the findings of conviction recorded against the accused appellant for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 are based on no evidence and thus, are liable to be set aside and accused appellant Vinod Kumar is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Case of accused appellant Het Ram for offence under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.That relevant Fard of seizure of gun is Ex. P/8 and the motbir witnesses to this Fard are PW. 1 Sadul Singh and P.W. 4 Prem Singh and both have been declared hostile. In Fard Ex. P/8, there is mention of the fact that gun in question is the licensed gun in the name of accused appellant Hetram and licence No. is 6/81 DMGHR and it was renewed on 31.12.81. 1 Sadul Singh and P.W. 4 Prem Singh and both have been declared hostile. In Fard Ex. P/8, there is mention of the fact that gun in question is the licensed gun in the name of accused appellant Hetram and licence No. is 6/81 DMGHR and it was renewed on 31.12.81. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also mentioned in Para 11 of his judgment that the gun was licensed gun. When this being the position, the conviction of the accused appellant Hetram for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained specially when there is no evidence to hold that this accused appellant used this gun and thus, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect are liable to be set aside and he is also entitled to be acquitted of this charge.Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeal of both the accused appellants, namely, Het Ram and Vinod Kumar is allowed and the judgment and order dated 9.12.1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar by which both the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 are set aside and they are also acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Since they are on bail, they need not surrender, and their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******