NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was the accused on the file of learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocity cases) Baran bearing Sessions Case No. 86/95, found guilty and convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 24/04/1997 as under :- Under S. 302, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to further suffer six months imprisonment Under S. 27 Arms Act to undergo three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In short the prosecution case is that at the Government Hospital Baran a written report (Ex. P. 1) was submitted by informant Brij Raj Singh Hada. Advocate (PW. 11) at 8.30 p.m. to Hamir Singh SHO P.S. Kotwali Baran (PW. 8) on 30/11/1997 with the averments that around 7-30 a.m. on the same day the appellant along with Virendra Singh and Laxmi Narain Advocate came to the house of the informant and Laxmi Narain as well as Virendra Singh exhorted the appellant to fire. The appellant opened fire from the Topidar Gun the pellets of which hit on the chest, stomach and right hand of Gajrendra Singh After the gun was fired the appellant and his other two companions took to their heels injured Gajendra Singh, informant Brij Raj Singh, his wife, daughter Nirmala and Surendra Singh chased the accused persons but when Gajendra Singh reached at the railway track be fell down and became unconscious. Gajendra Singh was removed to the Hospital where he was declared dead. There was bad blood between the accused persons and the informant on account of land dispute and because of that Gajrendra Singh was liquidated. The report was sent to P. S. Kotwali through constable Nand Singh case No. 431/94 under S. 302/34, IPC was registered, formal FIR (Ex. P. 2) was drawn and investigation commenced. Site plan and inquest report were prepared statement of witnesses under Section 141 Cr. P.C. were recorded. Necessary memos regarding seizure of blood smeared soil from the place of incident, blood stained clothes of the deceased, arrest of appellant, information supplied by him under Section 27 Evidence Act and recovery of Topidar Gun allegedly used in commission of offence were drawn. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned trial Judge. Charges under sections 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313, Cr. P.C. the appellant discerned that the accused party and complainant party entered into compromise in regard to their land dispute on Sept. 26, 1991. A complaint was made by him against the informant Brij Raj Singh Advocate in the Bar Council on the basis of which Brij Raj Singh was debarred from legal practice for six months. In defence one witness was examined. On hearing final submissions learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove but acquitted the co-accused Virendra Singh and there was no appeal against his acquittal.

(3.) Mr. S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior counsel for the appellant took us through the relevant portions of the evidence of eye witnesses Brij Raj Singh (PW. 11). Nirmala (PW. 12), Surendra Singh (P.W. 13) and Santosh Bai (PW. 14) and the judgment of the learned trial Judge and initially attempted to canvass that the presence of these witnesses at the time of the incident was highly unnatural. They did not see the incident but because of enmity they had implicated the appellant. The site plan does not corroborate the ocular testimony and the prosecution failed to spell out the genesis of the occurrence. As the argument did not carry conviction learned counsel contended alternatively that the circumstances made it clear that the appellant would not have intentionally shot the deceased with a view to kill him or with a view to cause an injury which would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but must have shot the deceased on account of some grave and sudden provocation as is evident from the testimony of the eye-witnesses that after hurling abuses the appellant went away from the house of the complainant party but he was chased by the deceased and the eye-witnesses therefore the case does not travel beyond Section 304, Part I, IPC. Reliance was placed on various authorities that shall be considered at appropriate juncture.