KARTAR SINGH Vs. JOGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K.D.S. Sandhu appearing for the complainant Kartar Singh has stated that the State had not filed appeal against the acquittal as envisaged under Sec. 378 Code Criminal Procedure The prosecution case, in short, is that Kartar Singh complainant made a statement that he sells milk and his brother Resham Singh is having separate house and is residing there with his family members. He has further stated that on 20th Aug., 1994, iron rods and concrete were sent at a cart from Bhatinda to his village in order to construct a house and he, after selling the milk at Bhatinda was coming on motorcycle and at bus stand of his village, he stopped his motorcycle to know whether the cart loaded with construction material has reached the village or not. It is stated that at that time, Jagga Singh respondent accused who was his uncle and was armed with 12 bore gun, came on a scooter of Baldev Singh Patwari from Bhatinda. Jagga Singh alighted from the scooter of Bladev Singh and to cut the story short, it is stated that the witnesses reached at the spot and the accused respondent fired a shot towards the complainant but the complainant took shelter behind a camel cart and the pellets hit the left arm of Jaspal Kaur wife of the complainant. Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1996 2 It is further stated that the pellets also hit the door of Tek Singh and some hit the right arm of Ranjit Kaur and the forehead of Kuldeep Kaur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda relied upon the medical evidence to hold that no fire arm injury was caused to the injured. It will be apposite here to reproduce the finding of the trial Court :

(2.) Learned trial Court further held that prosecution case is also doubtful since no blood was found at the place of occurrence or on the clothes of the injured which clearly spells out that fire arm was not used in this case.

(3.) It was held in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh and another , relying upon D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 Supreme Court 196 , as under :