- (1.) THIS appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated August 7, 1976 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. to life imprisonment and under section 27 of the Arms Act to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to 3 months' further rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE case relates to the incident which took place on March 11, 1974, at about 4. 15 P. M. at the house of Ganpat Ram in village Naiwala which resulted in the death of Chet Ram by a gun shot injury. THE version given in the first information lodged at Police Station Tibbi on March 12, 1974 at 8. 15 A. M. by Shri Ram, brother of the deceased was that on the date of the incident at about 4. 15 P. M. the accused had gone to the house of Ganpat Ram in connection with the marriage of his son. THE accused was having a gun with him. He went inside the house, leaving his gun on a cot out side. THE deceased who was also there lifted the gun and while he was to handling it, the gun got fired, causing injuries to Chetram which resulted in his death. Shri Sujan Singh S. H. O. Tibbi took the investigation, reached the place of incident, conducted the site inspection, prepared the memo of inspection, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted a final report in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh to the effect that the deceased had received the gun shot injuries by an accidental fire. The final report was endorsed by Shri Narnarain, Dy. Superintendent of Police. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the order dated the April 9, 1974 accepted the same. Subsequently, it appears, a meeting of the Police Officers of the Circle was held at Hanumangarh on April 2, 1974. In that meeting the Superintendent of Police Sri Ganganagar did not agree with the result of investigation and directed Shri Narnarain Dy. Superintendent of Police to further investigate the matter. As a result of further investigation it was found by the said Dy. Superintendent of Police that it was not a case of accidental fire but a case of murder. A case under section 302 I. P. C. was accordingly registered at the Police Station Tibbi on April 23, 1974 which ultimately led to the filing of a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and sec 27 of the Arms Act in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh. The appellant was then committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The case was taken on transfer to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh who recorded the plea of the accused on January 8, 1976. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The witnesses Mokam Ram, Chanda and Rampratap, examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses of the occurrence did not support the prosecution case. Their version was that Mukhram, accused was having a gun with him, when he came to the house of Ganpat, in connection with the marriage of his son. He went inside the house leaving his gun on a cot out side. Deceased Chetram was then sitting on the cot. He lifted the gun and when he was so handling it, the gun got fired, causing injuries to the deceased. These witnesses were declared hostile. Only Shri Ram and Gopal, borthers of the deceased have supported the prosecution Shri Ram has deposted that he had gone to the house of Ganpat Ram in connection with the marriage of his son. Chet Ram also came there. As soon as he arrived, accused fired a gun at him, as a result there of Chet Ram sustained injuries and died. He was confronted with his earlier version in the report Ex. D. 5 and statement Ex. D. 2 where he had stated that the gun got fired accidentally. He denied having made the said statements. Another witness to support the prosecution is Gopal who stated that it was accused Mukh Ram who aimed the gun towards the deceased. The shot fired through the gun. hit the deceased resulting in his death. He was examined by the Police after a month and 13 days of the occurrence. Prior to it he did not narrate the occurrence to the police although he was present when the site was inspected and memo of inquest was prepared by Shri Sujan Singh S. H. O. Other witnesses, namely, Inderjeet Singh and Umed Singh have deposed to the various steps taken during investigation and Dr. Bheem Singh has proved the injuries and the post mortem report of the deceased. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he had gone to attend the marriage of Sohan son of Ganpat Baori. He went inside the house to offer 'bapa' (some part of marriage celebrations ). He had left the gun out side as it is considered ominous at such occasions. While inside, he heard the sound of a gun fire. He immediately rushed out and saw that Chet Ram had got injured and fallen down. He asked Chandu and Rampratap as to what had happened and they told him that Chetram was handling the gun when it got fired hitting the deceased and causing him injuries. The accused denied the presence of Shri Ram and Gopal at the place of the incident.
(3.) SHRI Sujan Singh S. H. O. was examined as a Court witness and he deposed to the various steps taken by him during investigation. He further stated that he had submitted a final report to the Dy. Superintendent of Police SHRI Narnarain who forwarded the same to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The final was then accepted by the learned Magistrate. He further deposed that thereafter the gun and the clothes were destroyed. By the judgment dated August 7, 1967, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, held the offence proved against the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the story that the gun got fired accidently. He held that the accused had fired the gun towards the deceased. On these findings the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this, the accused has filed the present appeal in this Court. ;