NARSING RAYSING RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narsing Raysing Rajput, who was the Police Sub- Inspector of Gram Rakshak Dal (G.R.D.) at Bhuj, at the relevant time, on his being convicted for the offences under Secs. 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred the present appeal. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutchh at Bhuj, by his judgment and order under appeal, dated January 17, 1994, held the appellant-P.S.I. guilty for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and imposed fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge also found him guilty for the offence under Sec. 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The said order of conviction and sentence has been rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutchh at Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1989.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, shortly stated, is that P.W. 2, Mahmadhussen Jusab, who was serving as a Driver in Motor Transport Section of G.R.D. at Bhuj and the accused - P.S.I. was head of the said unit in the year 1988. On October 24, 1988, a fire practice of the Gujarat Rakshak Dal was arranged at village Janan, situated in Rapar Taluka of Kutchh District. The appellant had to go to the said village Janan by a jeep being driven by P.W. 2-driver. Accordingly, he had gone to the said village Janan via Khadir. It is alleged that P.W. 2 Mahmadhussen Jusab, the complainant, had allowed two unauthorised persons in the jeep and had not taken the fire-arms for the purpose of practice of firing. The appellant-P.S.I., therefore, admonished the complainant. It is also the prosecution case that the appellant-P.S.I. had abused the complainant for that. P.W. 2 had, therefore, gone to village Khadir with P.W. 5 Dudhabhai, one of the Constables of G.R.D. for the purpose of taking the fire-arms and cartridges. While returning from village Janan, the appellant - P.S.I. got the jeep stopped, as he wanted to ease himself. Thereafter the appellant demanded that the jeep be driven by him. P.W. 2 refused to hand over the vehicle to appellant sating that an unauthorised person could not drive the jeep. The appellant thereupon got enraged and fired a bullet from his service-revolver, which hit P.W. 2 on the right becap from which the bullet had entered the shoulderbone causing facture. The complainant-P.W. 2, being scared, had then run away. It is also the prosecution case that when the complainant was running away, the appellant had fired second shot from his service-revolver. However, it did not hit him. The appellant took the jeep with the help of one tractor. P.W. 2 - complainant reached village Rapar by a truck after midnight at about 0-25 hours. He lodged the complaint against the appellant for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, by a report, the offence under Sec. 333 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the original complaint. P.W. 9 Dahyabhai Jijabhai Patel, who was the C.P.I. at Bhachau at the relevant time, completed the investigation. Thereafter, the charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences under Secs. 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted.

(3.) Charge at Exh. 1 in respect on basis of the aforesaid facts and offences was read over to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.