STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJUBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals filed by the state of Gujarat are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1980. THE present respondent was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on an allegation that on 26.7.1980 at about 9.30 p.m., at village Rundel, with a view to bring about the death of Ashok Rambhai, he had fired an indigenously manufactured Tamancha at one shashikant. THE pellets seem to have made some grazing injuries. THE motive for the crime appears to be that on account of election there were some disputes between the rival groups. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been at the to establish that the present respondent had fired an indigenously manufactured Tamancha. He, however, felt that the offence would not be one punishable under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code but it would be one punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, convicted the respondent for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further R.I. for seven days. THE respondent was also prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act for which, however, he was acquitted. THE State Government, being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent accused for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as also being aggrieved by the meagre sentence imposed, has preferred the present two appeals. For the reasons to be now recorded, we feel that the appeals are required to be unceremoniously dismissed. THE reasons are as under: 1. THE incident had taken place in 1980. THE accused has already undergone the sentence and it does not appear meet and just that he should be once again sent back to poison.

(2.) HOWEVER, if we were to find that the accused was guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, then we would not have been charged to send him to the Prison one again. From the evidence of Dr. N.M. Patel (P.W. 1) it appears that the injuries which were found on the person of Shashikant were of a simple nature and despite the fact that two pellets were found from the person of Shashikant which were removed after a period of 15 days, the injuries were of very simple character. The Tamancha which was allegedly used was also an indigenously manufactured Tamancha with a very short effective range. The weapon was fired from a distance of about 25 feet. Though Shashikant has stated that there was a distance of 16 to 17 feet, the effective range of the said weapon is about 25 feet. We, therefore, feel that the distance from which the weapon was fired by Itself reduced the weapons lethal force to a barest minimum and under those circumstances the injuries found on the person of Shashikant were not at all serious. With such a weapon, even if fired from a little closure range to bring about the death, would be almost next to impossible task and from such a distance the possibility of death was definitely ruled out. The accused, therefore, cannot be said to have in ended to do an act, which in all probabilities might have resulted in death of the injured. We, therefore, fee that the condition under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for which the appellant was sentenced three month's R.I. and which he has already undergone was the only just and proper sentence. The sentence does not require to be enhanced. The offence does not require to be converted into a serious offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The injury caused to Ashok Rambhai was also minor injury which was of the dimension of 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 Under the circumstances there was no possibility of holding the accused guilty for a higher offence and in that view of the matter both these appeals stand dismissed. Appeals dismissed.