GURMAIL SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal filed by Gurmail Singh. There were in all five accused in this case out of whom, vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2015, only accused Harwinder Singh, was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') whereas the remaining accused namely Harbans Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jagdeep Singh, were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) On 17.08.2008, Gurmail Singh complainant, his wife Parminder Kaur and his mother were present in their house. On the backside of their house, there is a field comprising of khasra No.199/16, owned and possessed by complainant's wife namely Parminder Kaur. He had sown chari and paddy crop in that field. That field also had a boundary wall. At about 3-4 p.m., the aforesaid accused came there in order to forcibly occupy the aforesaid field. All of them damaged the wall and iron gate affixed by the side of road. They also destroyed chari and paddy crops. Complainant and his mother Jangir Kaur, by hiding themselves behind wooden gate, had tried to stop them. On their resistance, accused Harbans Singh, had given sword blow on the person of complainant. Complainant went backwards, in that process, toe of sword had hit his forehead. Jangir Kaur, his mother has tried to save complainant, then Jagdeep Singh, had given sword blow on her person by its reverse side, which had hit her nose. At that time, Harwinder Singh, accused was armed with gun, Sukhdev Singh was armed with gandasa and Nirmal Singh was armed with double barrel gun. All of them had exhorted Harwinder Singh and Nirmal Singh, shouting that they should kill complainant and finish the matter for all times to come. At this, Harwinder Singh, fired a shot from his gun towards complainant and pellet had crossed just nereby his ear. In order to save his life, he had hidden himself behind wooden gate. Nirmal Singh and Harwinder Singh, accused had shot more fires to kill complainant but luckily he was saved. Pellets from shots, fired by accused, had hit the wall. Karnail Singh, son of Kehar Singh, had also reached the spot and saw the occurrence. Thereafter, other people from village had also collected there, upon which accused had run away from the spot with their respective weapons. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. It is also the case of the complainant that he and his mother were falsely involved in case FIR No.79 dated 17.08.2008, under Sections 323/324 read with section 34 IPC.

(3.) In the case in hand, the police had presented the challan under Sections 427 and 336 of IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Harwinder Singh alone, after investigations, regarding this occurrence. That case was also decided along with the present complaint vide impugned judgment.