Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1553 (PNJ)

Jagdish Ram v. State of Punjab

2003-11-12

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been instituted by Jagdish Ram against judgment and order dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced vide order of even date to RI for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant PW-1 Balbir Singh was attached as a gun man with Shri R.L. Dhand, retired Superintendent of Police at Shahkot. On 25.6.1991 at about 8.20 A.M. Balbir Singh-PW-1 went to the residence of Shri R.L. Dhand and on reaching there, he called Jeet servant of Shri Dhand but he did not get any response. So, he went inside the room and called Jeet but he found that the appellant and Smt. Gurmeeto w/o Jeet were naked and the appellant was having sex with her. She was crying at that time. PW-1 Balbir Singh told the appellant to behave properly and scolded him for his indecent behaviour. The appellant tried to run away from the spot but Balbir Singh blocked his way by standing in the door. In that process, the appellant snatched the revolver of Balbir Singh from his waist and fired at him hitting him in his abdomen. The pallet pierced through the abdomen and came out through thigh. The appellant in those days was living in a room nearby to the room of Jeet. 3. On hearing raula, PW-2 Sukhdev Kumar was attracted to the spot and he took the injured to the hospital at Shahkot immediately but since, the doctor was not available there, so, he shifted him to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. Thereafter, statement of PW-1 Balbir Singh Ex. PA was recorded. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was put in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. Having made out a prima facie case, the appellant was charged under Section 307/354 Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. 4. Having made out a prima facie case, the appellant was charged under Section 307/354 Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. After the closure of prosecution evidence on 12.11.1993, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication at the instance of PW-1 Balbir Singh-complainant. He next stated that Balbir Singh PW-1 was in the habit of asking him to bring different persons from different villages for his personal work and on the day of occurrence, he asked him to bring one Krishna Balmiki of Nangal Ambia which he refused as he was not feeling well and on that score, Balbir Singh started abusing him and he felt provocated and then Balbir Singh took out the revolver with a view to shoot at him but he grappled with him in order to save himself and in that struggle, revolver went off from Balbir Singh accidentally. In defence, he examined DW-1 Kartar Singh who had proved that Smt. Gurmeeto had given an affidavit whose copy is Ex. DB. DW-2 Jarnail Singh, Advocate of Nakodar was also examined who was an Oath Commissioner on 5.9.1991 and had attested the affidavit of Gurmeeto w/o Jeet. 6. After hearing the learned APP for the State and the defence counsel, Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 5.1.1994 but acquitted him of the charge under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced, vide order of even date, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 5.1.1994, the accused has filed the present appeal. I have heard Ms. Simmi Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Jagjit Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State and carefully gone through the case file. 8. PW-1 Balbir Singh stated that he was posted as a gunman with retired Superintendent of Police Mr. R.L. Dhand on 25.8.1991 and Mr. R.L. Dhand was residing at his behak in the fields in the revenue limits of village Shahkot. Jagjit Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State and carefully gone through the case file. 8. PW-1 Balbir Singh stated that he was posted as a gunman with retired Superintendent of Police Mr. R.L. Dhand on 25.8.1991 and Mr. R.L. Dhand was residing at his behak in the fields in the revenue limits of village Shahkot. He next stated that at about 8.20 A.M., he reached at the Behak at Shahkot and called his servant but when he found no response from him, so, he went inside the room and found that the door was open and the wife of Jeet was raising hue and cry and then he peeped into the room and saw that the appellant was trying to outrage her modesty and was doing intercourse with her. On seeing him, the appellant got up and he scolded him and then the appellant tried to run away from the spot but he blocked him by standing in the door and the appellant snatched his revolver from his waist and fired at him hitting him on his abdomen and the bullet after piercing his abdomen came out from his left thigh. 9. PW-1 Gurmeeto wife of Jeet has supported the version of PW-1 Balbir Singh. 10. PW-4 Dr. Karan Kumar Sharma medico-legally examined Balbir Singh on 25.8.1991 at 10.30 A.M. and found the following two injuries :- "1. Lacerated wound 3.4 cm x. 1.2 cm present in the hypogestic region along the interspinous line just right to the mid line. Margins were inverted and charred. Blood was oozing out of the wound. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm present on the postrolateral aspect of left thigh 7 inches below the anterior superior illiac spine. Margins were everted and blood was oozing out of the wound." 11. He next stated that the injuries were caused within the duration of six hours by way of fire-arm. He proved Ex. P.C. correct carbon copy of MLR. He next stated that infact both the injuries were caused by one bullet with the revolver. He also stated that there was no injury on any vital organ. 12. He next stated that the injuries were caused within the duration of six hours by way of fire-arm. He proved Ex. P.C. correct carbon copy of MLR. He next stated that infact both the injuries were caused by one bullet with the revolver. He also stated that there was no injury on any vital organ. 12. Thus, from the above evidence, it is proved that the appellant when he was naked, Balbir Singh PW-1 tried to prevent him from escaping, but he snatched the revolver from Balbir Singh and fired at him and caused him injury in the abdomen and that bullet came out from the left thigh. 13. Now the first question to be seen is whether the appellant had caused injury to Balbir Singh with the intention to kill him or he had caused injury with the intention to escape. 14. It is an admitted fact that PW-1 Balbir Singh had tried to prevent the appellant from escaping from that room. It was also admitted by PW-3 Gurmeeto that when PW-1 Balbir Singh tried to prevent the appellant from escaping, then the appellant started struggling with Balbir Singh and then he snatched his revolver and fired at Balbir Singh. This shows that there was a struggle between the appellant and Balbir Singh PW-1 and in that struggle, he snatched his revolver and fired at Balbir Singh, so that he could escape. PW-1 Balbir Singh and PW-3 Gurmeeto did not state that the appellant had fired at Balbir Singh with the intention to murder him. 15. Therefore, in these circumstances, intention of the appellant was to escape from that place as he was naked and did not want to be captured red- handed. Thus, there was no intention to kill PW-1 Balbir Singh. According to the medical evidence, Balbir Singh PW-1 had not suffered any injury on his vital parts. Infact, he had suffered only simple injuries. Therefore, looking all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code is made out instead of offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appellant is found guilty and convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. 16. Infact, he had suffered only simple injuries. Therefore, looking all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code is made out instead of offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appellant is found guilty and convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is suffering agony of the criminal proceedings for the last about more than 12 years, I think that it will meet the ends of justice if the appellant is sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would further suffer RI for two months. 17. With the modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.