DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By his judgment dated November 17, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh has convicted and sentenced the appellant Darshan Singh as under; - S. No. Offence under Section Sentence awarded 1. 302, I P. C. Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one year's R. I. 2.307, I. P. C. Six year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' like imprisonment. 3. 27 of the Arms Act Two years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) SUBSTANTIVE sentences were directed to run concurrently while those in default of the payment of fine consequentively. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction.

(3.) MR. Gaur did not challenge the finding of the Court below that the appellant Darshansingh was armed with 12-bore gun and he fired shots from it at PW 2 Tejsingh and the deceased-victim Sampurnasingh. He also did not challenge the conviction of the appellant under sec. 27 of the Arms Act. His submission is that no offence under section 302, IPC is made out against the appellant. It was argued that the deceased-victim Sampurnasingh was nearly 75 years in age. Dr. Gupta, who conducted the post mortem examination of his dead-body did not state that the gun shot injuries caused to him by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. It was argued that according to Dr. Gupta, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of all the injuries sustained by Sampurnasingh sustained as many as 12 injuries. As per prosecution, the appellant is the author of only injuries No. 1,6,7,8,9 and 10 and was not the author of the other injuries. Injury No. 3, which was 17 cm. x 6 cm. on the left side of the abdomen was in itself sufficient to cause haemorrhage and shock. It was urged that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to precisely show that the gun-shot-injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Gupta (PW 4) does not say so. As such, the offence is not covered by Clause 3rd of Section 302, IPC. The offence made out would, therefore, fall either within the ambit of section 326 or 304 Part II, IPC.