- (1.) A. N. Dikshita, J. Appellant, Naresh, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1979, passed by Sri Jaswant Singh v. Addi tional District and Sessions Judge, Badaun, in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1977 (State v. Naresh) convicting the appellant under Section 307, I. P. C. and sen tencing him to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default thereof he is directed to undergo 6 months' further R. I.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that one Chandra Prakash had gone to Narayan Khand Ashram and was returning from there around 2 p. m. on 13-7-1976 Chandra Prakash returned home with his hands blood- stained and holding his right side of stomach. He was brought by Swami Shivanand of Ashram Narain Khand. Chandra Prakash informed his uncle Ram Naresh who had come to visit his brother Ram Raksh Pal at his Civil Lines residence, that one Naresh son of Chhotey Lal resident of Mohalla Katra Brahmapura, Budaun was near the road of the Ashram. On demand to repay the loan. Naresh shot him with a revolver. THE incident was witnessed by Hardayal son of Ghanshyam, Sardar Jatav and Roshan Lal son of Asharfi. After shooting Chandra Prakash, Naresh ran towards south. Ram Raksh Pal father of Chandra Prakash took him to the Hospital and Ram Kuhore uncle of Chandra Prakash went to the police station to lodge the report, indicating that the condition of Chandra Prakash is very serious. An oral report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Badaun at 2. 50 p. m. on 13- 7-76. The distance of the police station is around 1/1-1/2 kms. Chandra Prakash was sent for medical examination and he was examined by Dr. R. K. Tandon, at District Hospital Budaun on 13-7-76 at 2. 50 p m. The following injuries were found on the person of Chandra Prakash : Injury.-"gun shot wound of entry 2 cm X 2 cm x cavity deep on the Rt. iliac fossa front of abdomen. Bleeding scorching present the wound. Injury under observation. Advised X-ray caused by Proj. Fire-arm. Duration-fresh. " The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector M. C. Jain, and a charge-sheet was filed. The appellant denied the charge and was put on trial.
(3.) HE was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the trial court. In support of the prosecution P. W. 4 Chandra Prakash corroborated the version in the F. I. R. He has stated that Ram Kishore is his real uncle. Naresh was known to him from before and he had taken a loan of Rs. 50/-which inspite of repeated requests and demands was not paid to him. On 13th July, 1976 this witness has stated that he had gone to Narain Khand Ashram and as he was returning from there around 2 O'clock, appellant Naresh met him. Again a demand was made. Some altercation ensued between the appellant and this witness. This witness insisted for the payment of the amount but the appellant took out the revolver and fired at him (Chandra Prakash) hit ting him in the right side of abdomen. This witness has also stated that as he did not fall down on the ground. Appellant tried to fire another shot and as he was putting the cartridge inside the fire-arm, some persons of the lacality ran and tried to catch-hold of him, but he escaped. Swami Shiva Nand took a rickshaw to his house where his uncle Ram Kishore and father Ram Raksh Pal met him. Chandra Prakash narrated the incident to his father and Ram Kishore. On this Ram Kishore uncle of Chandra Prakash went to the police station to lodge the report while his father Ram Raksh Pal took him to the hospital. In the hospital, he fell unconscious. He regained consciousness in the Mission Hospital at Bareilly, by which time he was operated upon. He regain ed consciousness after 5/6 days. This witness has been put to a very searching and gruelling cross-examination but nothing emerged as to make his testimony incredible. He has completely withstood the cross-examination and has testifi ed that Naresh had hit him in the abdomen with the revolver. He has also stated that Naresh is known him from before and that Naresh had hit him on account of his demand for repayment of the loan. There is nothing unnatural in the testimony of this witness which may not inspire confidence. His testi mony thus deserves to be accepted.;