STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MAST RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole respondent-accused was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharmshala for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the sentence and conviction recorded by the trial Court was set aside. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The accused and the prosecution witnesses are all from the same village Sug Tarkhana, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra. The accused and PW-5 Gian Chand were at loggerheads over the dispute of abadi and civil litigation between them was pending. The deceased Uttam Chand was employed as a carpenter at Delhi and had come to village on 5-8-1995 to attend the performance of first death anniversary of his mother. It is stated that on 14-8-1995 at about 10.00 A.M. Gian Chand - PW-5 had an altercation and quarrel with the accused Mast Ram with regard to the dispute over the abadi and the deceased Uttam Chand said to have intervened and advised both Gian Chand and Mast Ram not to quarrel and wait for the decision of the court in civil litigation. Thereupon, the accused Mast Ram became furious and threatened the deceased Uttam Chand that he would deal with him first of all as he was siding with Gian Chand with whom the accused had the civil dispute over the abadi. It is further stated that at about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, when the deceased Uttam Chand along with his brother Hans Raj PW-1 and Vijay Kumar PW-3 was proceeding towards the fields to get fodder for the cattle and was passing through the passage in front of the house of the accused Mast Ram, the accused with DBML (Double Barrel Muzzle Loaded) gun in his hand challenged Uttam Chand stating that he would be done to death and then fired at Uttam Chand. The deceased Uttam Chand received injuries on his arm, chest and shoulder, fell down on the ground, and became unconscious. Thereafter, the accused ran away towards the field with his gun. In the meantime, PW-4 Tarsem Lal also arrived and PWs, 1, 3 and 4 together shifted the deceased Uttam Chand to his nearby house where he breathed his last after sometime. The matter was reported to the Pradhan of the village, who advised to lodge a report with the police and the First Information Report was, accordingly, lodged. The accused was arrested on 18-8-1995 by PW-15 and pursuant to a disclosure statement, the DBML gun (Ex. P-11) was recovered from underneath the bushes near his house. Ex. P-11 was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found to be in working condition and having been fired. The accused pleaded ignorance in his statement under Section 313 but he did not lead any defence evidence. The spot inspection, was however carried out at the request of the accused in his examination under Section 313. It appears that the defence of the accused in his examination under Section 313 was that from the place where the accused is alleged to have fired at the deceased and the place where the deceased was standing and hit by the gun shot was not within the firing range. This has led to the trial Court for spot inspection. The inspection was carried out by the trial Court on 25-2-1996 in the presence of the accused, his counsel and the Public Prosecutor. The trial Court conducted a test gun shot fire from the place where the accused was alleged to have fired at the deceased and it was observed that the place where the deceased was standing and hit by the gun shot was within the firing range.

(3.) The trial Court after considering the evidence and eye witnesses accounts of PWs 1, 3, 4 and PW-2 - Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mahajan, who conducted the post-mortem examination and the report of forensic laboratory has recorded findings that the prosecution has established his case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the respondent as aforesaid.