JERAMA RUBAJI VALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the I. P. C. as also under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1976.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The accused and the complainant are brothers-in-law, the complainant's sister being married to the accused. There was some dispute regarding the amount relating to the proposed marriage of the second sister of the complainant with the brother of the accused. On the day in question, viz. , July 5, 1975, at about 5-30 p. m. , the accused came to the house of the complainant and asked him to come out. When the complainant came out of his house, the accused hurled filthy abuses. The accused also took out a pistol and fired at complainant Mogya from a distance of about 15 to 16 feet. To avoid the shot, complainant Mogya fell on the ground. The bullet, however, caused a burning injury below the right knee joint while it passed through between the legs of the complainant. Hearing the noise of pistol shot, P. W. 2 Gemu. who was a neighbour, came out of his house thinking the noise to be of a cracker. Coming out, Gamu noticed that the complainant was lying on the ground, and the accused, who had a pistol in his hand, fired a second shot, but it misfired. The accused then threw the pistol on the ground and ran away. This incident, particularly of the second shot, is also according to the prosecution, supposed to have been witnessed by three other persons, viz. , Ramu Motya, Rota Chamdya and Rama Zugarya. The village Kotwal Pralhad, on receiving the information, immediately contacted P. W. 3 Dongarsing, the Police Patil of village Vanyavihar, and conveyed the information that accused Jerma had injured Mogya with a pistol, and had run away. The Police Patil confirmed the said information from the complainant. He also took the pistol (Article 1) and one empty cartridge (Article 3) in possession. Soon thereafter he contacted the Police Station, Akkalkuva, on telephone and passed on the aforesaid information. At the said Police Station, Police Head Constable P. W. 5 Raghunath Pathak, who received the said information at about 7. 15 p. m. on the telephone, made an entry in the station Diary and within a few minutes conveyed the said information to P. S. I. Dongre (P. W. 6 ). By that time i. e. , by 8. 00 p, m. , Mogya also reached the Police Station. His oral complaint was reduced into writing by the P. S. I. and the same was completed by about 8. 30 p. m.

(3.) ON the basis of this complaint (Ex. 6), an offence was registered against the acused under Section 307 of the I. P. Code and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. P. S. I. Dongre thereafter reached the village in question at about 10. 30 p. m. covering a distance of about 6 kms. Statement of eye-witness Gemu was recorded. The Police Patil produced the pistol (Article 1) and the empty cartridge (Article 3 ). The said pistol was opened in the presence of panch P. W, 4 Ramdas and it was found to contain one more cartridge (Article 2 ). These articles were attached under panchanama Exhibit Police Patil produced the accused but he caused him to be arrested on the next day, i. e. , July 6, 1975. On the said day, July 6, 1975, statement of the Police Patil was also recorded as also the supplementary statement of the complainant. Under the guidance of the S. D. P. O. the scene of offence was minutely searched, when two small pellete (Article 4) were seen near the scene of offence and attached under the panchanama Exhibit 11. These articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. Sanction of the District Magistrate was sought and obtained to prosecute the accused in respect of the offence under the Arms Act, In due course, charge-sheet was filed and the accused was prosecuted under Section 307 of the I, P. Code and under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.