BHILA ALIAS UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for the offence under sections 307 and 3C7/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorours imprisonment under each count by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this appeal. In the earlier trial his co-accused Bhag Singh was acquitted and Kulwant Singh co-accused was convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced.

(2.) The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that on 9th December. 1979. at about 5.30 P.M.. Bakshish Singh and Dalip Singh PWs and Sat Kartar Singh were levelling their field with a tractor Sat Kartar Singh was driving tractor while Bakshish Singh and Dalip Singh PW5 were standing on the leveller(suhaga). The appellant and Kulwant Singh passed through that side and went to the house of Gian Singh. After a few minutes they returned and stood on a heap of earth near the field of the aforesaid PW. When the PW were passing near that heap of earth, then the appellant instigated his co-accused Kulwant Singh to fire a shot from his pistol. Kulwant Singh co-accused fired a shot from his pistol, which hit the right foot of Bakshish Singh PW. Kulwant Singh coaccused tried to re-Toad his pistol, but he was over-powered by Dalip Singh PW as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Bakshish Singh PW and Sat Kartar Singh went towards the appellant, who fired a shot from his pucca pistol towards them, but the shot did not hit anybody.

(3.) Thus, the case of the appellant is identical to that of Bhag Singh (acquitted accused). It is not uncommon in this part of the country to rope in more persons in addition to the real accused. Accordingly I am of the view that the participation of the appellant in the crime is not free from doubt. The shot fired by him did not bit anybody. Thus, it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant by way of abundant caution. He is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.