MUKH RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Mukhram who has been convicted under sec. 307 of the Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Ganga Nagar.

(2.) THE case relates to an incident which took place in village Dholipal at about 9 A. M. on the 23rd of July, 1951. THE prosecution story briefly was that one Nenuram was going from the Bazar to his house. As he was passing through the Bazar, Mukhram appellant came from behind and shouted to him to be careful and added that he would shoot him. Nenuram looked back and saw Mukhram holding a pistol in his hand. Nenuram tried to run away but the appellant fired at him with the result that he was hit on the neck. THE bullet pierced his neck and passed out below the left side of his chin. Nenuram fell down unconscious. One Gangajal was also coming from behind and ran towards the place and caught: hold of the accused when he was loading the pistol again. THE accused, however, got himself free and ran towards the tank. One Ratna had also come up and seen the incident. THEreafter, Gangajal and Ratna helped to remove Nenuram to his house. From there he was taken to the railway station and brought to Ganganagar hospital by them. His nephew Banwarilal met him at the hospital and was sent by him to make a report at the Thana Sangeria in the jurisdiction of which village Dholipal lies. Banwarilal went to Sangeria by the next train and made the report at 9-30 P. M. Next day, Moti Lal Assistant Sub-Inspector went to the spot and commenced investigation. He searched the house of the accused but nothing incriminating was recovered on the occasion. THE accused was also absconding. Later he learned that the accused was hiding in village Nukera and went there to arrest him; but on reaching Nukera he come to know that the accused had already gone away to his village. He then returned to Dholipal and surrounded the house of the accused and arrested him. THE house was also sear~hed and this time a country-made pistol of 38 bore with three cartridges was recovered therefrom. This search and the arrest of the accused took place on the 30th of July, 1951. THEreafter the' accused was prosecuted under sec. 307 of the Penal Code. THE reason tor this attack, which is given by the prosecution, is that there was enmity from before between the accused and Nenuram.

(3.) WE shall, therefore, now proceed to scrutinize the evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector Motilal to decide whether we can believe that the pistol was recovered from the house of the accused as stated by him. The suggestion on behalf of the defence is that no recovery whatsoever took place from the house of the accused and that the pistol which had been produced in court was somehow procured by the Assistant Sub-Inspector and the whole evidence as to recovery of the pistol from the house of the accused was concocted. It seems to us that if the intention of Assistant Sub-Inspector Motilal was to fake the recovery of that pistol, there was no reason why he should not have faked that recovery when he first searched the house of the accused on 24th of July, 1951. WE, however, find that on that day the accused was not present in his house and nothing was recovered from the search. On 30th July, the accused was arrested and the house was again searched and then this pistol was recovered. It seems to us that the explanation of the recovery is simple. On the first occasion when the search was made, the accused was not at his house and he might not have left the pistol behind. On the next occasion the accused was found and must have brought the pistol with him. He must have thought that as the house had already been searched, no second search would take place and it was safe to keep the pistol in the house. Unfortunately for him, the Assistant Sub-Inspector searched the house a second time and that is how the pistol was recovered. WE see no reason to disbelieve the statement of Assistant Sub-Inspector Motilal. WE are satisfied that the pistol was recovered from a room of the house of the accused where he was himself hiding at the time. The recovery of this pistol from the possession of the accused corroborates the statement of Gangajal who said that it was this pistol which he saw with the accused when the incident took place. On a careful consideration of the evidence in this case we are satisfied that the prosecution story is true, and the appellant has been rightly convicted.