K.C.PURI, J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed by the accused-appellant Krishan s/o Harbhaj, against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by Sh. Dewan Chand, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the law was set on motion on recording of statement of Manphool Singh-complainant who has stated that on 16.12.1994 he alongwith Bharti Lal and Kuldeep Singh s/o Chet Ram were present near Hanuman Mandir, when Krishan armed with his licensed gun and Ghamandi accused came there. On seeing the complainant and others, Ghamandi accused exhorted saying that teach a lesson to Bharti Lal etc. for lodging a case against him. On hearing this, Krishan accused fired a shot with intent to kill, which hit the right leg of Manphool Singh. The second shot hit the right cheek of Manphool Singh. On receipt of fire-injuries, he fell down. The injured as well as Bharti Lal and Kuldeep Singh made a noise saying "mar diya, mar diya", which attracted Asha and other people of the village. On seeing-them, Krishan and Ghamandi fled away with their weapon. There after Bharti Lal removed Manphool Singh to Government Hospital, Fatehabad, where his statement Exhibit PA was recorded, which formed the basis of FIR. The motive for the occurrence, according to the prosecution was that some time back Krishan and Ghamandi accused, caused injuries to Bharti Lal (nephew of Manphool Singh) and a criminal case was lodged against them. The accused were asking Bharti Lal for compromise, but Bharti Lal refused to compromise and therefore, they caused injuries to Manphool Singh with gun with intent to kill them.
(3.) DURING the investigation, fire arm was taken into possession. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the accused Krishan. However, Ghamandi accused was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused Krishan, whereas charge under Section 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused Ghamandi.;