JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Sharma, J. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order, dated 19-3-1980 passed by Shri Jaswant Singh, the then IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1979, State v. Lakpat Singh, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, IPC, Police Station Haldaur, dis trict Bijnor, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Jagdish Singh of the offence under Section 307, IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for three months.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Government Advocate. The FIR of this case was lodged by Mathura Singh informant, father of Km. Navnita injured, against the present accused-appellants and five other persons, namely Kalyan Singh, Lakhpat Singh, Raghunath Singh, Shiv Charan Singh and Nirmal Singh. The allegations in the FIR were that there was entity of litigation with the accused persons, that on 21-1-1979 at 10 a. m. he (informant) was taking food in the verandah of his house and his daughter Km. Navnita, aged about six years, was sitting near him, that all the six accused persons aforesaid came on the roofs of their cousins armed with fire-arms and Lathis and retorted acting in concert "aaj SALA AKELA PHAS GAYA HAI JAN SE MAR DO", that then Jagdish Singh accused- appellant fired at him with an intention to take his life; that he atonce sat down and consequently the pellets of fire struck Km. Navnita. It was further alleged that on the witnesses raising an alarm and challenging the accused persons, they ran away. She (Km. Navnita injured) was got medically examined on 21-1-1979 at 1 p. m. from Dr. Jagdish Prasad Srivastava (PW 3), Medical officer (Surgeo), district Hospital, Bijnor at that time. He recorded the following injuries on her person: "injury-multiple gun shot wounds starting from right side neck to right side chest, posterior lateral aspect, right upper extending outer and posterior side in scattered position in an area of 42 cm. X20 cm. each 1/8 cm. X1/8 cm. Xmuscle. No blackening scorching. " "duration of the injury was fresh. All the wounds were wounds of entry. Patient was facing difficulty in breathing. The patient condition was not satisfactory. The injury was kept under observation. The injuries were caused by projection dis charge from fire-arm. " The informant thereafter went to police station Kotwali City, Distt. Bijnor and lodged the FIR there at 4 p. m. on the same day against the said accused persons, on the basis of which the case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 307, IPC and after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the present accused-appellant and four others, namely Lakhpot Singh, Raghunath Singh, Nirmal Singh and Shiv Charan Singh. After committal to the Court of Sessions, all the five accused were charged and tried for the said offences. The learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor acquitted all of them except the present accused-appellant Jagdish Singh whom be convicted for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sentenced Jim as aforesaid. He acquitted the said four co-accused on the grounds that. Km. Navnita injured did not name them in her statement, that it was accused Jagdish Singh who fired a shot and that she received injuries from that shot and that there was no other person except accused Jagdish Singh. The learned Sessions Judge also discarded the evidence of the eye-witness Devi Singh (PW) stating that in view of the statement of Km. Navnita PW 2 his statement has got no (not) much value. He placed reliance on the testimony of Km. Navnita injured. He observed that in view of the state ment of Km. Navnita PW 2, the whole can be was confined to accused Jagdish Singh only and to no other person. He further observed that the informant named the other accused persons in the FIR on account of admitted enmity and Partisan in the village but this was no ground to reject his version for the reason that enmity was admitted to the complainant himself.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this appeal ought to be allowed and the accused-appellant Jagdish Singh must be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.