MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant convicted for the offence of Section 307 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine rupees two hundred vide judgment dated 20.12.89 in Sessions Case No.45/86 before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, preferring this appeal, requests reversal of conviction and sentence.

(2.) Said facts and events per prosecution are somewhat like this that on 9.7.84, SHO PW 8 received information from hospital Pilibanga that Ajmer Singh s/o. Mukan Singh in injured state, is admitted in hospital so he (PW 8) arrived at hospital, where injured was under treatment. Ajmer Singh told and informed him that he is employed and works at licensed country liquor shop of Sukhpal Singh in village Kharlia and Mani Ram s/o. Beerbal illicitly distills wine, so for apprehending Maniram, he (PW 7) often have to go with contractor, therefore, Maniram is annoyed to him. PW 1 stated that on that day, he with parents at around 7 O'clock in morning was at gate of nohra where came Maniram with a 12 bore pistol, shott at him and he (PW 1) sustaining abdominal injury felll down, taken to hospital by parents and neighbour Bakhta Ram. PW 8, recording statement as Ex.P1, on its basis, registered FIR No.91/89 (Ex.P5) for the offence of Ss.307 IPC & S.27 Arms Act. In course of investigation, PW 8 visiting place of occurrence, prepared memo Ex.D1 and recorded statements of witnesses. Appears that on 27.7.84, brother of injured Sukhdev Singh preferred a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Proceedings under Section 210 followed and recorded were statements of witnesses. Order-sheet dated 7.11.84 speaks of police negative report and order passed for taking cognizance and registering of the case for the offence of S. 307 IPC.

(3.) Appellant charged for the offence of S.307 IPC, claimed trial. Among the prosecution witnesses examined, Ajmer Singh PW 1 is injured who depose of incident as above and injuries to him by appellant accused. PW 2 mother and PW 3 father of PW 1, eye-witnesses state of instant reaching and of incident as above. PW 4 and PW 7, said to be eyewitnesses, are declared hostile. PW 5 brother of the injured instituted criminal complaint in magisterial court. Medical Jurist examined injuries of PW 1 on 9.7.84 and proves injuries-injury report Ex.P4. PW 8 SHO is investigating officer.