STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Punjab has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 17-10-1984 recorded by Shri M.S. Sehmee, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby Karam Chand accused-respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution was that on 13-1-1984 constable Sarup Singh who was posted as Naib Moharrir at Police Station, 'B' Division, Amritsar along with HC Gian Singh and HC Arjan Singh was sitting outside the lockup Constable Karam Chand respondent was on sentry duty from 3.00 to 6.00 P.M. At. about 4.00 P.M. a girl named Guddi aged about 11-12 years who was daughter of Qadir Masih washerman passed that way in order to go to the house of Mst. Parkasho a sweepers who worked in the police station. The respondent who was on duty stopped her and directed her to go to the house of Parkasho through some other passage. Sarup Singh constable intervened and asked the respondent to allow her to go that way. An alteration took place between Sarup Singh and the respondent and there was exchange of hot words. The respondent who was having his service rifle, loaded the same and aimed it towards Sarup Singh. Gian Singh head constable however intervened and pushed the barrel of the rifle to one side as a result of which the shot hit the pillar or the verandah and Sarup Singh was saved. The report of the fire was heard by Inspector Amarjit Singh and MHC Amrik Singh who were present inside the police station. They came out. Inspector Amarjit Singh recorded the statement of Sarup Singh on the basis of which case was registered against the respondent. Rifle WORD) was seized from the respondent and was unloaded. It was found to contain one empty cartridge and four live cartridges. All these articles were seized vide a recovery memo. After investigation the respondent was tried for the above mentioned offence.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was positive evidence on the record that when an altercation took place between Sarup Singh and the respondent in connection with going of Guddi to the house of Mst. Parkasho through the police station the respondent loaded his service rifle, aimed the same towards Sarup Singh and fired at him. If HC Gian Singh who was present at the scene of occurrence, had not intervened and pushed the rifle aside the shot must have hit Sarup Singh. The circumstances of the case led to the only inference that it was the respondent who pulled the trigger of the rifle and it was not a case of accidental firing of the rifle when the barrel was pushed to one side. The submission of the learned counsel is however, not of much force and circumstances of the case reveal that under Section 307 IPC was not committed by the respondent. There is no definite evidence that the trigger was pulled by the respondent. Mere aiming of rifle towards Sarup Singh did not mean that he was about to fire a shot towards him with an intention to commit his murder. A person commits the offence of attempt to commit a particular offence when he intends to commit that particular -offence and he having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence does an act towards its commission. Such an act need not be penultimate act towards the commission of the offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence. In the instant case unless it was proved that the respondent after aiming the rifle towards Sarup Singh pulled the trigger with an intention to commit his murder he could not be held liable for the offence with which he was charged. In cases of attempt to commit murder by fire-arm the act amounting to an attempt to commit murder is bound to be the only and the last act to lie done by the culprit. Till he fires he does not do any act towards the commission of the offence and once he fires and sometime happens to prevent the shot taking effect, the offence under Section 307 is made out. Statement of HC Gian Singh who appeared as PW 2 shows that the respondent had simply aimed the rifle towards Sarup Singh and he had not pulled the trigger. The shot was fired only when he pushed the barrel away. In these circumstances the learned trial court was right in drawing the inference that the rifle went off accidentally hitting the pillar when its barrel was pushed away by Gian Singh. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are, therefore, affirmed and the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of any force. Appeal dismissed.