RAJA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJA Ram Das preferred this appeal. He was tried in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1972 and h as been convicted under sections 304 Part II and 324 I. P. C. and section 30 Arms Act and has been sentenced to 5 years R. I. 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to undergo 3 months R. L, respectively, under the three counts. The prosecution case, in brief was that P. W. 6 Jamadar's mother's sister (Mausi) Smt. Ramwati was married to appellant Raja Ram who resided in village Ritaul. Raja Ram had a daughter Ladli from Smt. Ramwati who originally came from village Ranipur Gaur which was at a distance of one mile from village Ritaul. On 8.9.69 in the early morning Jamadar and his mother brought to their house in village Ranipur Gaur Smt. Ram Wati and her daughter Km. Ladli from the house of Raja Ram in village Ritaul while Raja Ram was away in his fields and without the permission of Raja Ram. On return to the house Raja Ram found his wife and daughter absent and on enquiry he was told that they had been taken to village Ranipur Gaur by Jamadar and his mother. Raja Ram did not have a good opinion about the character of Jamadar and resented his wife Smt. Ramwati and daughter being taken away without parmission. Raja Ram and his father Param Sukh were both gun licensees and their guns were kept together in the house. Raja Ram picked up his Arms licence and one of the two D. B. B. L. guns taking it to be his own and went to village Ranipur Gaur and on reaching the house of Jamadar at about 10 A. M. enquired of him why he had brought his wife and daughter without permission. At that time Kashi a close associate of Jamadar, was also present at the house of Jamadar. There was an exchange of abuses between Raja Ram on the one side and Jamadar and his associate Kashi on the other. Raja Ram was assaulted by Jamadar and Kashi Kanhai Singh (P. W. 1), Sarpanch of the village whose house was closely came and intervened. Thereafter Raja Ram picked up his minor daughter Ladli and left the house of Jamadar on his way to his own village Ritaul. Kanhai Singh apprehending that Raja Ram may again be assaulted by Jamadar and Kashi decided to escort Raja Ram and his daughter to the outskirts of village Ranipur. The way from the house of Jamadar to Ritaul passed infront of the house of Kanhai Singh. The wife of Kanhai Singh, namely, Smt. Jamna Devi, also accompanied her husband Kanhai Singh who was escorting Raja Ram to the outskirts of the village. As Raja Ram and his daughter reached in front of the Baithak of Siya Ram, who is the nephew of Kanhai Singh, Jamadar and Kashi again surrounded Raja Ram and started assaulting him with first, kicks, shoes and lathis. Kanhai Singh asked Jamadar and Kashi not to assault Raja Ram, Jamadar threw a challenge to Raja Ram to shoot if Raja Ram happened to be a true Ahir. On this challenge Raja Ram aimed his gun at Jamadar and simultaneously fired two shots at Jamadar who ducked and escaped injury, but the shot struck Jamna Devi, wife of Kanhai Singh, who was standing behind Jamadar on whom the gun was aimed. From the two shots fired three other persons standing nearabout, namely, Rameshwar (P. W. 2), Ram Autar (P. W. 3) and Kailash also suffered gunshot injuries. Thereafter Raja Ram was overpowered and the gun was snatched from him. He was kept in custody. Smt. Jamna Devi on receiving the gunshot injury fell down dead on the spot. Kanhai Singh (P. W. 1) went by cycle to Police station Kaimganj which was at a distance of 3 miles and lodged an oral report of the incident. On the basis of this oral report Head Moharrir Raghubar Singh (P. W. 5) registered a case under section 302/307 I. P. C. against Raja Ram on 8-9-69 at 11-15 A. M.

(2.) INVESTIGATION was taken by Station Officer Chandra Pal Singh (P. W. 8). The injured victims Rameshwar (P. W. 2), Ram Autar (P. W. 3) and Kailash were medically examined by Dr. G. D. Ahuja (P. W. 7) who noted their injuries in their respective injury reports Exs. ka 4, ka 6 and ka 7 post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Jamna Devi was held on 9-9-69 a 1 12-15 P. M. by Dr. R. P. Chaudhary who noted 2 gunshot anti mortem injuries in the post mortem examination report Ex. ka 21. On internal examination the doctor found communicated fracture of the frontal bone and the anterior cranial fossa. He extracted 19 pellets from the dead body. In his opinion Smt.Jamna Devi was about 55 years of age and her death was due to coma resulting from gunshot injuries to the brain, and the probable time since death at the time of the post mortem examination was about one day. Appellant Raja Ram was admitted in the District Jail. Fatehgarh and on 10-9-69 at 7-30 A. M. he was medically examined by Dr. R. P. Chaudhary who found 6 injuries which he noted in the injury report, copy of which is Ex. ka 10. one of the jnjuries was found to be grievous, and the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were about two days old.

(3.) AFTER arriving at the above conclusion the trial court proceeded to consider if the plea of self defence as set up by Raja Ram had been proved and the learned trial judge was of the view that it was not proved since no question was put by the defence to the witnesses that the grievous injury suffered by Raja Ram had been accused prior to the firing of the gun which accidentally shot dead Smt. Jamna Devi on the spot and injured three other persons. According to the learned judge it was incumbent upon the appellant to have specifically put this question of grievous hurt, namely, injury to the teeth, having been caused to him to the prosecution witnesses and no such question having been put it was not open for the court to infer that this injury would have caused before the gun was fired and in this view of the matter the trial judge felt that the appellant was liable to be convicted under section 304 Part II I. P. C. for causing the death of Smt. Jamna Devi and under section 324 I. P, C. for causing injuries to Rameshwar, Ram Autar and Kailash. and under section 30 Arms Act for carrying the gun of his father and not his own. Sri C.S. Saran, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that once the trial court has come to the finding that Jamadar and Kashi were the aggressors and Raja Ram had fired his gun in exercise of his right of pri-vate defence of person and property, there was no occasion for the trial judge to consider whether the defence has established the fact of the grievous hurt having been sustained by the appellant prior to his firing the gun.