JAGRUP SINGH SON OF SHRI GULAB SINGH, CASTE GHIRTH, RESIDENT OF LOWER HATWAS, PS, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KANGRA (HP) Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since all the appeals arise out of a Judgment dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2002. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Baldev Singh, PW1 is the real brother of accused Jagrup Singh. According to the complainant, there was a property dispute between him and his brother and therefore, after getting partition done he had got pillars fixed to mark the boundaries of the land falling to his share. These pillars were uprooted by the accused on the night of October, 2001. The complainant reported the matter to the police and thereafter, compromise was arrived at between the complainant and his brother and the accused assured that he would not repeat such an act in future. However, the accused continued to interfere in the possession of the complainant and, therefore, complainant Baldev Singh filed an application EX.PW1/A dated 21.11.2001 with the SDM, Kangra about the nefarious activities of the accused. This application was marked to the police.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, on 12.12.2001 at about 5:30 P.M. when he was returning from his fields through the path in front of the house of the accused and was going towards his own house, the accused came into his courtyard with a gun and aimed the gun at the complainant and fired at him. Fortunately, the shot did not hit the complainant but hit some dry leaves in front of the complainant. This incident was allegedly witnessed by his son Balwinder Singh, PW2. PW3 Smt. Veena Devi Bhabhi of the parties and PW4, Onkar Singh, who was the another brother of Baldev Singh, who did not actually witness the occurrence but heard the gun shot and when they turned around later towards the house of the accused, they found the accused holding a gun in his hand.

(3.) AFTER trial, the learned trial Court found that the accused had in fact fired the gun shot but came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that it was fired with the intention of killing the complainant. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it was of the opinion that the gun was fired with view to scare Baldev Singh and not with the intention to kill him. The pellets were found at different places and none was immediately near the place where the complainant was standing. The accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 336 IPC, i.e., endangering human life and personal safety of others and also of having committed an offence punishable under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused was, however, granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act after the report of the Probation Officer was called.