TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of Amrik Singh, the deceased in the case, by shooting him with the gun. The case rested on the evidence of Public Witness s 6 and 7 the two eyewitnesses. The trial court accepted their evidence andconvicted the appellant. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High court. The occurrence took place on 31/08/1977 at about 7 p. m. The deceased, Public Witness s 6 and 7 were returning after attending the fair at village talwandi and when they reached the metalled road outside Talwandi they saw the appellant armed with a gun and another accused, Gurcharan Singh armed with a gandasi. It is alleged that the acquitted accused, Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara. Thereupon the appellant fired a shot which hit on the chest of Amrik singh, deceased and he fell down. Public Witness s 6 and 7 raised an alarm. Both of them, however, carried the injured to Primary Health Centre, Gharyala. Public Witness 2 the doctor examined the deceased and noticed the lacerated wounds on the muscle deep in front of left side of the chest. The injuries were caused by a firearm. The deceased was given first-aid and he was also referred to the S. G. T. B. Hospital, amritsar where he succumbed to his injuries at 11.40 p. m. On 9/09/1977 Public Witness 12 on receipt of information about the arrival of the injured person in the hospital, ASI recorded the statement of Public Witness 6 on the basis of which F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Patti. The inquest was held on the dead body and post-mortem was conducted by Public Witness 3 the doctor. The gun which belonged to gurcharan Singh was recovered after investigation. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was framed. The plea of accused is one of denial. Both the courts below accepted the evidence of Public Witness s 6 and 7. The doctor's evidence disclosed that the injuries which ultimately proved fatal were caused by a firearm.

(2.) The trial court gave the benefit of doubt to Gurcharan Singh and acquitted him. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not explained as to how the gun belonging to Gurcharan singh came in the hands of the appellant and this itself introduced a serious infirmity into the evidence of the eyewitnesses. We see no force in the submission. The evidence of eyewitnesses is to the effect that both the appellant and Gurcharan Singh were coming together and in the circumstances there is nothing strange if the appellant was carrying the gun belonging to Gurcharan singh who was also in his company. The learned counsel also submitted that the distance from which the appellant could have shot the deceased is not clearly spoken by the eyewitnesses. Witness es in such a situation cannot give the accurate data about the distance. The medical evidence shows that the deceased has been shot from a short distance. We have gone through the evidence of two eyewitnesses in detail. Nothing significant has been shown in the cross- examination. The last submission is that there was no motive for the appellant to commit this offence and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had intention to cause the death of the deceased. The intention has to be gathered from the various circumstances particularly the nature of the weapons used and the injuries that are inflicted. If one shoots another with a firearm there cannot be any other intention. The first illustration of Section 300 itself makes it clear. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.