MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) These two appeals, one by the accused-appellant and another by the State,have been preferred against the same judgment, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment dated 23/09/1991 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No 16/91 by which the accused-appellant is convicted as under:- Under Section 304 A I.P.C. Accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to pay fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 27 (1) of Indian Arms Act, The accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to pay fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(2.) The contents of F.I.R. (Ex.P.12) reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... and this FIR No.64/1991 was lodged on 07.03.1991 at 6.30 p.m.
(3.) Heard both the sides, learned public prosecutor has contended that the trial Court has committed error in not convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C., accused-appellant has committed murder by killing a person by firing of gun shot, which itself is a vulnerable act, per se homicidal and trial Court has committed error by convicting the accused appellant under Section 304A of I.P.C. coupled with Section 27(1) of Arms Act, so findings of learned trial Court be reversed and appeal filed by the State be allowed. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused person under the provisions of Arms Act, the alleged weapon was not recovered from the possession of the accused and he has uttered truth that the mishap was accidental, when the guests were celebrating gaiety of marriage in fervour and the sentence passed under Section 304A is also maximum, ends of justice will meet, if the appellant-accused is convicted with sentence already undergone after altering the judgment impugned, hence, the appeal be allowed and the sentence of the trial Court be modified.;