KHEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After a gap of about one year of the incident of finding the AddI. Sessions Judges, Delhi on 1.3.76 framed the following charges against the accused Khem Chand: That you on 17.3.75 at about 7.30 P.M. at shop No. 91, Chara Mandi, Zakhira did an act to wit fired a pistol shot with such intention/knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of Mehar Singh you would have been guilty of murder and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and within the cognizance of this court. Secondly, at the about said date, time and place you used a pistol of which you had a valid licence by shooting at Mehar Singh and committed the offence of 307 IPC and thereby you committed the offence punishable u/Ss. 27/54/59 Arms Act and within the cognizance of this Court.

(2.) Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses whereas the accused preferred to rely upon the evidence of three D Ws. His defence is that a false case has been instituted by Mehar Singh in collusion with Partap Singh, Sub-Inspector who is his relation. He admitted that the pistol in question belonged to him. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge on consideration of the material before him convicted the accused of the commission of the offences charged with and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 307 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under the second charge. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) In appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the correctness of the finding of fact of the court below holding the appellant guilty of the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. and u/ss. 27/54/59 of the Arms Act but his prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence. According to him, the present appeal has come on the daily board of this Court after a lapse of more than 10 years of its institution. At this late hour of the day, it is not desirable to make him suffer the unexpired period of sentence. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has nothing much to urge on the question of sentence which has to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.