OM PRAKASH Vs. HIRA LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties were charge sheeted by the police under Ss. 307 IPC and 147 or 148, IPC. The case for the prosecution was that Om Prakash, the Petitioner, had built a chabutra at the door of his house. On 30 -5 -1964 at 7 or 7 -30 a.m. the opposite parties came to that chabutra to demolish it. Hira and Jaswant were armed with guns, Gopi and Sobha were armed with pistols and the remaining persons carried spades for demolishing the chabutra. On arrival there the opposite parties who carried spades started demolishing the chabutra, while those armed with guns and pistols mounted guard nearby. When Om Prakash protested the opposite parties abused him and went on digging the Chabutra claiming that it is their parti. In the meantime Kamta Prasad, Smt. Jagrani, Dafedar, Chandra Bhan and Ram Bux arrived there and reasoned with the opposite parties and Om Prakash even suggested that the dispute might be referred to a Panchayat. Thereupon, Hira, Jaswant, Gopi and Sobha aimed their weapons at Om Prakash and fired. Om Prakash, however, managed to take cover behind a neem tree. Thereupon the former fired again and injured Kamta Prasad, Smt. Jagrani, Ram Bux and Dafedar and thereafter ran away.

(2.) The prosecution examined ten eye -witnesses, including the four injured persons, in support of its case. In addition it examined Dr. R.L. Nanda to prove that the injuries received by the four injured persons were caused by fire arms, at about the time stated by the eye witnesses. The learned Magistrate took the view (1) that as the injury reports of all the injured persons showed taat the wounds were caused by 'bird -shooting cartridges' which in the natural and ordinary course of events could not cause death (2) that the fire arms in question were not used with the intention or knowledge of the likelihood to cause death but simply with the intention to cause hurt and (3) that as no grievous hurt was caused, the case was fit to be tried under Sec. 324 IPC. He, therefore, discharged the opposite parties under Sec. 307 IPC and charged them under Sec. 324 IPC along with Sec. 147 or Sec. 148 IPC.

(3.) The state went up in revision and the learned Additional District Magistrate (J) who heard it relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nahar Singh v/s. State, 1952 CriLJ 440 held that no revision lay against the order of discharge. He accordingly held that the revision was liable to fail on that ground alone. However, for the sake of completeness, as he described it - -he dealt with the matter on merits also and agreeing with the learned Magistrate, he dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by that decision Om Prakash, the complainant, has come up in revision to this Court.