N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) -This revision by the accused has been directed against the order dated 3.3.82 passed by the then Munsif-Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 376/82 (Crime No. 544 A/81) summoning them for the offence punishable under Sections 323/324/307 I.P.C. It appears that the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323/324 I.P.C. Thereafter the Circle Officer intervened in the matter and directed him to file charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. as well. Thereupon charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. was also filed.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel of the revisionist is that no case under Section 307 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out and, therefore, the trial court should not have summoned the revisionists for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The incident is said to have taken place on 7.12.81 at 8.15 A.M. in front of the house of the first informant Bhisham Singh. Accused Lokendra Singh is the son of accused Preetam Singh. It is said in the F.I.R. that on account of old enmity Lokendra armed with a country made pistol along with his father Preetam Singh came to the door of the informant's house and in order to kill him Lokendra Singh fired upon him. Preetam Singh inflicted injuries with kicks and fists upon the mother of the first informant. The injury report would show that the first informant had one fire arm in,jury on the front of right thigh. slight blackening was present on the upper part of margin. He had another fire arm injury on the left lower leg 9 cm. below the left knee joint. Margin were burning. It was argued that these injuries are of minor nature and were caused on non vital part of the body and, therefore, no case under Section 307 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. In the F.I.R. it is clearly stated that in order to kill the first informant accused Lokendra Singh fired from country made pistol which he was carrying. Firing from country made pistol would indicate that the assailant had the intention and also knowledge that if by that act he committed the death of the victim he would have been guilty of murder. Simply from the fact that the pellets hit non vital parts of the body it cannot be said at this stage that his intention was not to cause the death of the victim. In State of Maharashtra v. Balrarn Banta Paul and others, 1983 (20) Allahabad Criminal Cases (Summary of Cases) 26 ' it was held that "To justify a conviction under this section (307 I.P.C. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see whether the act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge or under such circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof." In the instant case Lokendra Singh came armed with a country made pistol and fired upon the victim causing injury. It is therefore clear that he had the intention of causing the death of the victim and for that reason he had come armed with a country made pistol and did an overt act in execution thereof i.e. fired from the country made pistol causing injuries to the victim.
(3.) In the facts and circumstances it prima facie appears at this stage that an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out.;