RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 16/19.01.2013, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, (Camp at Bilaspur), H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 4 -7 of 2011, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 IPC and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and one year alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and Rs. 1,000/ -, respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. In lieu of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months, three months, two months, one month and two months, respectively under the aforesaid counts.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that Nand Lal (PW -5) on 14.10.2010 at about 4:30 -5:00 PM, at Kandrour was sitting in his courtyard on a chair and accused fired at him on his back side from his gun which hit him on his right arm and right side of his back. He fell down from the chair. Sita Devi (PW -7), wife of Nand Lal, was sitting in the room and Biasan Devi (PW -6), daughter -in -law of Nand Lal was at the water tap at a distance of 8 -10 feet in front of Nand Lal. Accused was wearing a belt on his shoulder around his waist having cartridges. Nand Lal was taken inside the kitchen by Sita Devi and Smt. Biasan Devi. Accused came towards window of kitchen and the door of the window was closed and thereafter, accused ran towards the road. Jai Nand (PW -3) was sitting in his courtyard. His wife Urmila Devi (PW -4) was serving tea to him and Mamta Devi, wife of his brother was also sitting at a distance of 6 -7 feet. Accused came towards Jai Nand in the courtyard with a gun and fired at him. Due to fire, pellet hit him on his right foot and calf. He fell down. Pallets also hit on Urmila Devi and Mamta Devi. On the same day, Soma Devi (PW -8) was working at a distance of 5 -7 feet from her son, namely, Ramesh, who was working near the wall of his house. Accused fired at Ramesh also on his right chest. Rakesh Kumar (PW -9), came at the spot and accused started running towards road and fell down. He was caught hold off by the people, who had gathered at the spot. Rakesh Kumar snatched the gun from the accused and gave it to Sita Devi and belt containing cartridges was kept by the side of the road. Injured Jai Nand, Nand Lal and Ramesh were taken to RH Bilaspur for treatment. Accused was detained at the spot by the police. Dr. Poonam Jaswal, PW -1 medically examined Ramesh, Nand Lal, Mamta, Urmila Devi and Jai Nand and issued MLCs Ext. PW -1/A, PW -1/C, PW -1/E, PW -1/F and Ext. PW -1/G, respectively. Accused was also medically examined vide MLC Ext. PW -1/I. Ramesh Kumar died on the way to IGMC, Shimla. His post mortem was conducted by Dr. Rishi Tandon, PW -12 and Dr. Ankur Dharmani, on 15.10.2011 vide report Ext. PW -12/B. The opinion given by doctor was that the cause of death was fire arm injury probable with gunshot from near range, leading to rupture of vital organs i.e. liver and right lung alongwith hemorrhage, leading to shock and death. The probable time that had elapsed between injury and death was 2 to 10 hours and between death and post mortem was 12 to 18 hours. The statement of Jai Nand Ext. PW -3/A was registered in the Hospital, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW -10/A was recorded. The case property was sent for chemical examination. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Anup Chitkara, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 16/19.1.2013.