Hans Raj vs State of Haryana

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated April 22, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appellant Hans Raj was convicted u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Bimla Devi was married to accused Hans Raj in the year 1975. She remained with him upto 1980 and thereafter the accused started maltreating her and she left his house and started living with her parents in village Baropal. It has been stated by her that earlier she was posted as a Peon in village Bhodahushnak and in 1983 she was transferred to Kanya School, Baropal. In 1985-86 the accused came to village Baropal and threatened her that he would get her kidnapped. An application in this respect was also moved by her father.

It is alleged that an October 3, 1988 at about 5 P.M. Bimla Devi along with her brother Sant Lal was returning from their fields to village Baropal. She was ahead of her brother by 8 paces. When she had just crossed Ramdev temple situated in the village, the accused was found hiding by the side of the temple. On seeing her, he came out and asked her to stop. Thereafter the accused fired a shot from the pistol, aiming at her, but she fell down on the ground immediately and, therefore, she did not receive any fire-arm injury. As the accused wanted to kill her, he re-loaded the pistol. However, in the meantime, her brother Sant Lal over-powered the accused. Her cousin Bir Singh also reached the spot. Sant Lal and Bir Singh caught hold of the accused along with the pistol.

The prosecution has examined many witnesses, including the complainant (P.W.1), Sant Lal (P.W.2) and Bir Singh (P.W.3). Whereas Sant Lal and the complainant supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the incident. However, Bir Singh did not support the case of the prosecution. The entire occurrence was narrated in detail by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Their testimony could not be shaken by the defence.

Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the marriage of the appellant with the complainant was solemnised in the year 1975. He further contends that since the year 1980 the accused and the complainant had been living separately, whereas the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on October 3, 1988. It is contended that there is no earthy reason as to why after so many years of living separately, the accused would want to kill his wife with whom he was having no relations, whatsoever.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the accused had fired at the complainant and, thereafter, when the shot missed the target, the accused re-loaded the pistol. The incident has been narrated in detail by the complainant as well as by Sant Lal, P.W.2. Even Bir Singh has stated that the incident did take place. It has further been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the accused is involved in more than 11 cases.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the statements of the complainant as well as Sant Lal (P.W.2), clearly shows that the accused had fired upon his wife Smt. Bimla Devi. When the shot missed the target, the accused re-loaded the pistol with the intention to kill her. However, in the meantime Sant Lal (P.W.2) and Bir Singh (P.W.3) reached the spot and over-powered the accused and she was, thus, rescued by them. The testimony of the complainant as well as Sant Lal (P.W.2) could not be shaken by the defence. Earlier also, the accused had threatened the complainant that she would be kidnapped. With regard to that incident, an application was filed by the father of the complainant way-back in the year 1985. Merely because the shot fired by the accused did not hit the complainant, does not mean that the accused did not want to cause fire-arm injuries to the complainant.

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the conviction of the accused-appellant u/s 307, I.P.C., is upheld.

However, coming to the point of sentence, it has been argued by Shri Atul Lakhanpal that the accused is the husband of the complainant.

It has further been stated by him that the incident had taken place in the year 1988 and more than 14 years have elapsed since then. It has been contended by the learned counsel that even if it is assumed that the shot had been fired by the accused, but no one has received injuries as the shot had missed the complainant. Thus, he contends that a lenient view with regard to sentence may be taken.

After hearing the learned counsel for the accused, I find that this case does call for a lenient view. In the present case, as has been mentioned above, no one has been injured. Moreover, the incident relates to the year 1988. A period of more than 14 years has elapsed since then.

In this view of the matter, I reduce the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, as imposed on the accused-appellant, to the one already undergone by him. However, the accused shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to Smt. Bimla Devi complainant. The amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today. In the event of non-payment of the amount by the accused, the sentence, as imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, hisar, vide his order dated April 22, 1989, shall remain as it is. It shall be the duty of the accused-appellant to pay the amount of compensation to Smt. Bimla Devi before the expiry of three months.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.