HARISH CHAWLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25th July, 2000 and 29th July, 2000 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC and directed to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant is to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution filing the charge-sheet are that on 19th June, 1998 at about 6:30 A.M. when the Complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta was present at his shop at 281/80 Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, the Appellant Harish Chawla with one Narender who knew him previously came to his shop and asked why he did not send money to him. On the Complainant replying that why he should pay the money, Harish Chawla took out a country-made pistol and fired at his right thigh protruding towards left in the skin of his thigh. On the Complainant escaping from the bullet injuries, Narender also fired at him from the behind. In the meantime, his brother and other persons started collecting. Thus on seeing the people coming, both the accused ran away. On the Statement Ex. PW1/A of the injured, FIR Ex.PW 6/A was registered and both the accused were arrested. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons and the defence witnesses, the learned trial court convicted the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced as abovementioned. Learned Trial Court acquitted co-accused Narender of the charges framed against him.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner does not challenge the present appeal on merits and confines his arguments to the quantum of sentence. He states that the Appellant was awarded a sentence of imprisonment for a period of ten years out of which he has already undergone a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of more than seven years. He prays that the sentence of the Appellant be modified to the period already undergone. Reliance is placed on Pappu @ Hari Om v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 3 SCC(Cri) 1450 and Balkar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2009 15 SCC 366. It is contended that the facts as stated do not fall within the ambit of an intention to commit an act that is likely to cause death but an intention to cause an injury which may probably cause death. In the decisions quoted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the distinction between the knowledge of an offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximating to a practical certainty. It was held that when the knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act would amount to an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.