J. R. CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, dated 11-6-1987 whereby the learned lower court has held the accused appellant Maniram guilty of the offence under sections 307 & 458 IPC and section 27 Arms Act and has sentenced him to 6 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo two months rigorous impri-sonment for the offence under section 307 IPC, to undergo 4 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo two months* rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 458 IPC and to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 27 Arms Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that one Chananram and his brother Krishanlal owed a tractor and their tractor was hired by accused Maniram. THEy worked at his field for about 6 to 7 days. On the night intervening between 20th and 21st June, 1984, Chananram and Krishanlal received information from their village that their presence is required there and, therefore, they wanted to settle their account with Maniram. It is alleged that Krishanlal went to settle the account with Maniram at about 11 in the night. It is further alleged that he was given a slap by Maniram and his account was not settled Krishanlal came and reported this matter to his brother Chananram whereupon. Chananram and his brother-in-law (gainer) Banwarilal went to the house of Maniram and asked him not only to settle the account but called his explanation as to why he gave a slap to Krishan Lal. Maniram refused to settle the account and went inside his house. It appears that sensing trouble Banwarilal and Chananram ran away from that place and went to house of Begaram. Latter, it is alleged that Maniram came to the house of Begaram at about 12 or 12. 15 in the night and asked where Chananram is? On this Chananram who was sleeping there woke up and fold that he is there. It is alleged that at that point of time. Maniram fired from his pistol at Chananram by which, he received injuries. THE matter was reported to the Police by the injured himself at about 8. 15 A. M. on 21-6-1984. The police registered a case under sections 307, 324 and 458 IPC read with section 27 Arms Act against the accused - appellant and after usual investigation, the case against the accused-appellant was challaned in the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, who after holding trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. I have heard Mr. M. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and Mr. S. K. Mathur the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. Mr. M. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that even if it is held that accused Maniram has fired from his pistol and has injured Chananram, the offence does not travel beyond section 324 IPC because the fire has taken its full effect and has caused only simple injury and that too on non-vital organ of the body. He has further submitted that the offence under section 458 IPC is not made out against the accused-appellant. He does not contest the conviction of the accused under section 27 Arms Act He has, however, submitted that the accused has already remained in custody from 5-6-1984 to 24-8-1984 and thereafter he has remained in custody from 11-6-1987 till today and therefore in the fact and circumstances of this case the sentence served out by him would meet the ends of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, firstly the accused Maniram engaged the tractor of the complainant to work at his field for 7 days and when the complainant asked him to settle the account he refused to settle the account and not only he slapped Krishna Lal but when Chananram and his brother-in-law Banwarilal went to settle the account he refused to settle the account and thereafter, entering into the house of Begaram, he inflicted injuries with gun shot to Chananram and, therefore, the judgment of the learned lower court is perfectly justified and should not be interfered.
(3.) I have given my most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. In this case it is not disputed that Maniram fired from his country made pistol at Chananram and Chananram has been injured in this incident. PW 1 Dr. Sahiram has stated that he examined Chananram on 21-6-1984. He found one round wound with inverted marks on his left buttock. He found two other wounds. (1) Gun shot wound (wound of entrance) 1/2" circular lacerated wound (margins are inverted and bruised ). (2) Gunshot lacerated wound 1/2" circular (margins are inverted and bruised) wound of entrance. According to the Doctor, these injuries have been caused by fire arm. No tatooing and blackening of skin were found by the Doctor. According to the Doctor, all the wounds were at more than 6" distance from each other. No wound of the exist was seen. The Docter has further stated that the injuries have not hit any vital organ. The blood-pressure of the injured was normal. The prosecution has examined PW 2 Chananram PW 3 Krishan Lal, PW 4 Banwarilal, and PW 5 Patram as alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. These witnesses have stated that Maniram fired from his pistol on Chananram. It is not alleged that any person intervened and that the fire did not take its full effect on account of the intervention. It is therefore, clear that the fire was aimed at the lower part of the body and it has caused simple injuries. When pistol shot takes its full effect and causes simple injuries on the non-vital part of the body, it cannot be considered to be a case where the accused might have intended to kill his victim or to cause him such injuries as were likely to cause his death and therefore the case cannot travel beyond section 24 IPC. I. therefore, agree with Mr. M. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused - appellant that actually offence under section 324 IPC is made out against the accused appellant and the learned lower court has erred in holding the accused guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC. In this respect, I get support from a decision of this Court in Pannalal vs. State of Raj. (1), wherein the injuries caused by a gun shot were found to be simple in nature and, therefore, the conviction under section 307 IPC was altered under sec. 325 IPC. ;