CHANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in sessions case No. 100/94 the appellant named above preferred this appeal on the facts and grounds mentioned hereinafter. He challenges the order of conviction and sentence to him to imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and a lesser sentence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The prosecution story is almost undisputed that the first information report was lodged on Feb. 20, 1993 by one Raghuvir Singh that constable or sipoy Chandan Singh present accused of 3rd RAC Battalion has fired his put on Sheesh Ram. The accused and Sheesh Ram the deceased were lying on their bed and were discussing with each other. When the discussion got converted into a quarrel and in the quarrel Chandan Singh the accused picked up his rifle and fired a shot at Sheesh Ram which hit Sheesh Ram in his neck which resulted in his instantaneous death. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the accused was prosecuted for murder of the deceased. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved certain documents and on the appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder and consistent with this finding of guilt, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to sentence him for imprisonment for life. It is this order which is challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the accused on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record shows that the accused was forced to consume liquor and it was in the state of intoxication that the action of lifting the gun and firing it at Sheesh Ram took place. According to the learned counsel the case was covered by the provisions of Sec. 86 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly should have been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, in any case there is no question of the accused being guilty of murder. Then relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court it was contended that the state of mind of the accused was such as he was incapable of having intention requisite for the offence of murder and no conviction under Sec. 302 Penal Code is possible. It was also alternatively submitted by the learned counsel that lenient view in the circumstances is liable to be taken as the accused has already lost his job and has been in jail for more than five years. The offence if any was committed in an intoxicated and inducement by the deceased and, therefore, neither intention nor knowledge of death could be attributed in the accused who should in such circumstances be allowed to be released on punishment already undergone.