JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dt. January 11, 1979 by which he has convicted the accused -appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON August 1, 1977, at about 11 p.m. the injured -informant Brijlal (PW 2) was sleeping in his house along with his father Nandram (PW 3) and brother Hotram situated at Manak Tibi (P.S. Tibi) (Sri Ganganagar). The accused -appellant Jagdish had enmity with him since long. He came there and started abusing him. When Nandram (PW 3) resented, he proclaimed that he would kill them. He fired a shot from his pistol. Its pellets caused injuries on his hand. On his hue and cry, Dhanram, Sheolal, Hamir Singh and several other villagers came there. FIR Ex.P 2 was lodged in the Police Station, Tibi (Sri Ganganagar) at 8.15 a m on August 2. 1977. A case under Section 307, IPC and Section 27, Arms Act was registered against the accused appellant. On his information, a country made pistol was recovered. After obtaining requisite sanction under Section 39, Arms Act, challan under Section 307, IPC and Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1. Hanumangarh who committed the accused to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh for trial by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar Charges under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act were framed against the accused. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses produced and proved 15 documents. The accused denied the prosecution story. He disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he is a resident of village Kalwana, he has neither any land nor any property in Manak Tibi and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the accused -appellant as said above.

(3.) IN reply, the learned Public Prosecutor tried his best to support the judgment under appeal.