STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.1995 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 6 -S/7 of 1991 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 450 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the accused was a tenant in the premises owned by Mr. J.S. Rurki, father of the injured Manju Kapoor. Mr. Rurki had filed an eviction petition against the accused and an eviction order had been passed against him. Therefore, the relations between the parties were strained. According to the prosecution on 18.6.1988, at about 9.30 a.m. Mrs. Veena Rurki, wife of Mr. J.S. Rurki, accompanied by her daughter Manju Kapoor asked the accused why he had not vacated the premises. On this, the accused told her that he had obtained a stay order from the Court. He started abusing Mrs. Veena Rurki and threatened to kill her and her daughter Manju Kapoor. Veena Rurki and Manju Kapoor returned to their flat in the second floor of the building owned by her husband. The accused was a tenant on the first floor. According to the prosecution, the accused immediately followed Mrs. Veena Rurki and her daughter Manju Kapoor and fired a shot from his licensed revolver and the gunshot hit the breast of Manju Kapoor. As a result of this Manju Kapoor fell down. Mrs. Veena Rurki and her son Neeraj immediately closed and bolted the door from inside. She also raised hue and cry. In the mean time, the accused fired two more shots. Jatinder and Haminder knocked at the door of Mrs. Veena Rurki. Her son Neeraj went to inform the police. It is alleged that this incident was also witnessed by one Mr. Bhatti who was staying in the house of Mrs. Veena Rurki as a guest. Mrs. Veena Rurki also gave telephonic information about the incident to the police. It transpired that one of the other shots fired by the accused hit the railing of the staircase and the splinters hit the leg of one Dr. Deep Kishore, who was a tenant in the ground floor of the building. Thereafter, the statement of Mrs. Veena Rurki was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on this basis F.I.R. was lodged. Manju Kapoor who was pregnant was treated and remained in the hospital. Her pregnancy was terminated. The police arrested the accused. The pistol and the licence of the revolver used by the accused were taken into possession. The police also took into possession wooden pieces which fell down when the shots were allegedly fired by the accused in the house of Mr. J.S. Rurki. Spot map was prepared and the area got photographed. On the basis of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court. After trial, the accused was acquitted. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned Counsel and have gone through the entire records of the case.