BANSAL, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20. 11. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jhalawar whereby accused appellant Jalim Singh has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for one year. Co-accused Bhagwati, Nand Kishore and Mohan have been acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 20. 06. 98 at about 12. 00 noon appellant Jalim Singh fired a gunshot and caused injuries on the person of PW3 Lakhmichand in front of the house of PW 12 Sugren, brother of PW 3 Lakhmichand in village Nandiya Khedi, P. S. Jhalarapatan. As per the prosecution evidence, the appellant along with other accused had come at the house of Sugren on previous day. They wanted to take away Mst. Salot D/o Sugren forcibly who was already married to Roopchand. On this account a scuffle took place between Sugren and accused persons. Sugren and Jalim Singh grappled each other. Thereafter the appellant fired a shot and caused injuries on left elbow, right forearm, left thigh, back of the chest and abdomen of PW 3 Lakhmichand. On the basis of `parcha-Bayan' Ex. P1 of PW 3 Lakhmichand which was recorded by PW 10 Mohan Singh. ASI, P. S. Jhalarapatan in S. R. G. Hospital, Jhalawar, FIR Ex. P2 was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the against the appellant and other co-accused. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and no transfer by the learned Sessions Judge it was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 against all the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as is witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , all the accused pleaded innocence. No evidence was adduced in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on hearing the final submissions made by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant Jalim Singh as indicated herein-above and acquitted him of the charge under Section 323/34 IPC. The remaining accused were acquitted of both the charges. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused- appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the impugned Judgment as also the entire prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that except injured PW 3 Lakhmichand and his wife PW 2 Kalawati, none of the alleged eye-witness has supported the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had caused injuries to PW3 Lakhmichand. This contention of the learned counsel has no force. It is true that except PW 2 Kalawati and PW 3 Lakhmichand (injured), none of the remaining eye-witnesses has supported the prosecution case, but only on this ground it cannot be held that the appellant had not caused the firearm injuries to PW 3 Lakhmichand. As per the testimony of PW 3 Lakhmichand, when he reached at the house of his brother Sugren he found his brother and accused exchanging hot words. They were grappling each other. The accused wanted to take away Mst. Salol D/o Sugren forcibly. In the course of grappling appellant Jalim Singh fired a gunshot and caused injuries to PW 3 Lakhmichand. PW2 Kalawati has supported her husband so far as the appellant is concerned.
(3.) APART from that, the testimony of Lakhmichand stands corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 9 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Vyas has deposed that on 27. 6. 1998 as Medical Jurist, S. R. G. Hospital, Jhalawar, he examined Lakhmichand S/o Jharma and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Tatooing with swelling 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" left back of elbow. (2) Tatooing with swelling 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" middle forearm posteriorly. (3) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"x1/4"x1/4" right forearm lower 1/3rd. (4) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"x1/2"x1/2" left thigh upper 1/3rd medially. (5) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"x1/2"x1/2" left chest wall. (6) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"x1/2"x1/2", 3" below injury No. 5. (7) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"1/2"x1/2" lower chest left side. (8) Tatooing with swelling 1/2"x1/2"x1/2" left side of abdomen. Dr. Vyas further stated that all the injuries were simple in nature. The duration of injuries was within six hours. He prepared Injury Report Ex. P9. It was further stated by Dr. Vyas that on X-ray of abdomen, left thigh, chest and right elbow pellets were seen. In view of the medical evidence, reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 3 Lakhmichand and his wife PW 2 Kalawati. On close and careful scrutiny of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, I found it cogent and credible. Thus, in my considered view also, the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused injuries by firing a gunshot on the person of PW 3 Lakhmichand. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellant and the Trial Court has committed as error in convicting the appellant. Learned counsel further contended that one of the injuries found on the person of PW3 Lakhmichand at the time of his medical examination was grievous in nature. On medical examination, Dr. Vyas opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. On X-ray no fracture was found. Though Dr. Vyas has stated before the Trial Court that he had performed operation on PW3 Lakhmichand and on opening of abdomen he found minimal gas under diaphragm, multiple pellets also seen. Biliary fluid was present in abdominal cavity, there was perforation of ilium (small gut) and, therefore, in his opinion injury in abdomen was grievous and dangerous to life. But neither the operation notes nor the bed head ticket has been produced by the prosecution in its evidence. Learned counsel contended that the injuries caused to Lakhmichand were not imminently dangerous. At best it can be said that there can be some remote chance of their becoming dangerous to life or becoming sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the injured, in case medical aid was not rendered. Danger to life from an injury should be imminent to constitute it as a dangerous one. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the present case does not travel beyond Section 324 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that Dr. Vyas has said that the injury sustained by Lakhmichand in his abdomen was dangerous to life and it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and therefore, the prosecution has been able prove charge under Section 307 IPC against the appellant. ;