BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh convicting the appellant of offence under Sec. 307 I.RC. and sentencing him to 3 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00. The learned Judge also convicted the accused appellant of offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act sentencing him to 1 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default of payment, to further undergo 1 months S.I.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.12.1976 at about 8 p.m. PW/5 Maniram and PW/6 Rampratap were returning to their house in the tractor from their field. When they reached near their house, the accused Banwarilal and his father Ramdhan were standing in front of their house. Seeing them, the accused Ramdhan asked Banwarilal that the enemies are passing. It is alleged that Banwarilal, armed with 12 bore gun, fired, on account of which, injuries were sustained on his right side of thigh. Maniram made a cry and fell down. Rampratap tried to lift him, when he tried to get up, Ramdhan again shouted that the enemy has come and he should be killed and Banwarilal again fired hitting Rampratap on the right side of thigh. Both the injured persons were taken in the house. They, were taken to the hospital on the same day. They were examined by PW/4 Dr. S.M. Sani. He prepared injury report Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9. On radiological examination, it was found that there was a fracture on right side of thigh of Maniram. The police also found that the accused Banwarilai was carrying 12 bore gun without licence. Thus, the Police, after usual investigation filed chargesheet against the accused Banwarilal and Ramdhan of offence under Secs. 307 and 324 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses, in the statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. the accused persons stated that infact Rampratap and Maniram were injured by Hazariram but, as the compromise took place between them, the accused persons have been falsely implicated because of land dispute. The Trial Court relying on the testimony of the injured witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above.

(3.) Assailing the judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel that the injuries on the persons of Maniram and Rampratap show that the appellant had no intention to kill them and as such, his conviction under Sec. 307 I.RC. is not sustainable. On the other hand the learned P.P. assisted by Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submits that the appellant Banwarilal did not satisfy by causing injury to Maniram, and again fired at Rampratap which clearly demonstrates that the accused fired the gun with intention to kill them.