STATE OF H.P. Vs. ASHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been assailed in the present appeal by the State.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case against the Respondent as emerges from the evidence on record can be stated thus. It is alleged that on 28th April, 1996, the complainant, who was working as a driver in NJPC had come on leave to his village Chaklu. At about 2 p.m., the complainant was present in his house alongwith his wife Gita Devi, brother Rajiv and his wife Champa Devi. In the meantime, his father i.e. Respondent came there, he was about to enter the room with shoes in his feet where the complainant was sitting. The complainant told him to put off the shoes outside the room. Feeling offended by this remark, he left the place, but came again and called the complainant and his wife to come out of the room. His mother came out followed by him, the Respondent took out his muzzle loaded gun and fired a shot on the leg of the complainant which hit him just above the ankle and fell down. His wife Gita Devi, brother Rajiv and sister -in -law Champa Devi rescued the complainant. Tara Wati aunt of the complainant accompanied by one Sanjay Chauhan also came to the spot. Thereafter, injured was taken to the dispensary at Kunihar and on the basis of his Rapat, FIR Ex.PW14/A was recorded by the police.

(3.) POLICE took into possession the muzzle loading gun Ex.P1 belonging to the Respondent vide memo Ex.PW1/A, pant of the complainant, blood stained soil from the courtyard and also prepared the site plan Ex.PW15/A. The pallets which were found on the spot were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Photographs Exts.PW8/A to F of the place of incident were also taken. The pallets alleged to have been extracted from the wound and the gun Ex.P1 were sent for the ballistic opinion to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, but his report was not tendered in evidence.