N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.2.1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore convicting the accused-appellant of offence under section 324 IPC and sentencing him to 1 year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-. He has also been convicted of offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case is that on 22.4.1981 at about 6.00 p.m. in village Panala, Bhakra Ram heard the noise of gun-shot, suspecting hunting of deer, he rushed to the sight. He saw 4 persons running from the sight. It is alleged that one of them fired at Bhakra Ram and the other accused gave lathi blow. The matter was investigated by the Police and the charge-sheet was laid of offence under sections 307, 307/34, 323 IPC & 27 of the Arms Act.
(3.) The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 5 Bhakraram as in the FIR he has stated that the appellant-Dan Singh was armed with gun but, in his statement, he has stated that he had taken gun from one Hansa and then fired. In my view this contradiction is trival in nature and only on this ground the testimony of injured witness which is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 1 Dr. Mohanlal Paniya cannot be rejected. PW 1 Dr. Mohanlal Paniya has stated that he examined Bhagirath @ Bhakraram on 23.4.1981 and found following injuries on his person:- 1. Fire arm wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 2 cm. directed upwards with backening of margins. On palpation, no pallets are felt in and around the wound. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 3/4 cm. on the right parioto-occipital region. The injuries have been found to be simple in nature caused by fire arm weapon. Thus, in view of this, conviction of the appellant under section 3241PC is justified and does not call for any interference. So far as the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the same also does not call for interference as admittedly, the appellant was not having the licence of the gun and he was found in possession of the said gun when he fired at Bhagirath.;