SHYAM SUNDER BYAS, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated August 27, 1981, by convicting and sentencing the appellant Harbhajan Singh as under: _________________________________________________________________________________S. No. Offence under section Sentence awarded_________________________________________________________________________________(1) 302, IPC imprisonment for life(2) 25(1)(c), Arms Act Rigorious imprisonmentfor four months;(3) 27, Arms Act Four months' rigorousimprisonment.__________________________________________________________________________________ The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Jagjit Singh aged about 20 years, was the son of PW 1 Atma Singh and PW 2 Smt. Mahindra Kaur. He was living with them in Chak -2, P.S. Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar. The appellant Harbhajan Singh, aged about 22/23 years, is also a resident of the same Chak. Heera Ram Nayak, who is father of the coaccused Peeruram (acquitted by the Court below) was share -cropper of the appellant. The appellant developed illicit connections with the wife of the share -cropper Peeruram. The deceased Jagjitsingh had seen the appellant and the wife of Peeruram in compromising position in his field. This displeased the appellant. It is suggested that this annoyance prompted the appellant to take away the life of Jagjit Singh. On November 19, 1980 the deceased Jagjit Singh, his mother Smt. Mo indra Kaur (PW 2) and his uncle Srawansingh PW 3 were working in their Murabba. The deceased and his mother Smt. Mohindrakaur PW 2 plucked the cotton bolls. Jagjitsingh thereafter put the green grass and prepared a bundle of it. He then took the bundle on his head and started to go to his house. When he was in Kila No. 9 of his Chak, the appellant and Peeruram appeared there. The appellant was holding a pistol in his hand. He gave a Lalkara to Jagjitsingh that he would not leave him alive Saying so, he fired a shot at Jagjitsingh which hit him in his chest. Jagjitsingh staggered three or four stops and fell down in the Khala (water channel). Smt. Mohindra Kaur PW 2 raised the cries and asked the accused as to why they killed Jagjitsingh. The appellant and Peeruram thereafter ran away towards their Dhani. Srawan Singh PW 3, who was working in the same Murabba, came running. Finding Jagjitsingh lying dead, Srawansingh PW 3 went to Karanpur where the victim's father Atmasingh had gone to the Patwari. Smt. Mohindra Kaur PW 2 went to the village. Srawansingh reached the house of the Patwari, where he found PWI Atmasingh. He narrated the incident to Atmasingh. Both of them went together to police station, Karanpur, where Atmasingh PW 1 verbally lodged report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 1.00. p.m. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Babulal PW 11 arrived on the scene of the occurrence at about 7.00 am on November 20, 1980. He inspected the site and prepared the inquest of the victim's dead body. He seized the blood -stained soil lying scattered around the dead body and also from Kila No. 2 where Jagjitsingh was fired at. The post -mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 1.00 p.m. by PW 7 Dr. M.P. Agrawal the then Medical Officer Incharge Primary Health Centre, Karanpur. The doctor noticed the following ante -mortem injuries over the victim's dead body: External (1) Wound of entry, lacerated, inverted edges, oval shaped with clotted blood 1/2' x 1/2' x thoraxic cavity deep, directed posteriorly, medially and down wards, situated in the left 2nd space and over upper margin of left 3rd rib in the mid -clavicular line with fracture of left 3rd rib; (2) Wound of exit, lacerated, everted edges, oval shaped, with clotted blood and dark fluid blood oozing out of it, 3/4' x 1/2' x thoraxic cavity deep, just medial to the medial border of left scapula at the level of D5, D6 vertebra, 2/1 -2 on left of the mid line. Internal Left third rib anteriorly under injury No. 1 and left 5th and 6th ribs posteriorly under injury No. 2 was found fractured; left pleura was lacerated under injury No. 1 with a big hole anteriorly and posteriorly both aspects. Left pleural cavity was full of massive dark fluid blood. In the left lung there was a big hole 1' x 1' present anteriorly and 1/1 -2' x 1 -1/2' posteriorly with through and through wound and laceration of the lung. The doctor was of the opinion that the case of death of the victim was gun shot injury. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post mortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 8. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The appellant was arrested on November 24, 1980 and in consequence of the information furnished by him on November 27, 1980, pistol (Ex. 8), empty cartridge case (Ex. 9) and two live cartridges (Ex. 10 & Ex. 11) were recovered. On scientific examination, the pistol was found serviceable. Human blood was detected on the cloths of the deceased victim. The co -accused Peeru Ram was also arrested. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against Peeru Ram and the appellant Harbhajan Singh in the Court of Munsif cum -Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. He framed a charge under Section 302/34, IPC against Peeruram and under Section 302, IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Both the accused denied their complicity in the commission of the crime and submitted that they were falsely implicated as their relations with the complainant party were not happy. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against accused Peeruram to connect him with the murder of Jagjitsingh. He was therefore, acquitted. The prosecution case was taken substantially true and the charges were held duly proved against the appellant Harbhajan Singh. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction, Harbhajan Singh has taken this appeal. We have heard Mr. D.K. Purohit learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the complainant's counsel Mr. M.L. Garg. We have also gone through the case file carefully.
(3.) IT may be stated before proceeding further that Mr. Purohit has not challenged the cause of death of Jagjitsingh as opined by Dr. M.P. Agrawal (PW 7). The doctor stated that Jagjitsingh had died on account of the gunshot injuries. Injury No. 1, being the entry wound and injury No. 2 being the exit wound. We have gone through the testimony of Dr. Agrawal and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Jagjitsingh was, thus, not natural. It was homicidal, caused by gun -shot.;