Jagrup Singh vs State of H.P. State of H.P. Vs Jagrup Singh

Deepak Gupta, J.—These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since all the appeals arise out of a Judgment dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2002. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Baldev Singh, PW1 is the real brother of accused Jagrup Singh. According to the complainant, there was a property dispute between him and his brother and therefore, after getting partition done he had got pillars fixed to mark the boundaries of the land falling to his share. These pillars were uprooted by the accused on the night of October, 2001. The complainant reported the matter to the police and thereafter, compromise was arrived at between the complainant and his brother and the accused assured that he would not repeat such an act in future. However, the accused continued to interfere in the possession of the complainant and, therefore, complainant Baldev Singh filed an application EX.PW1/A dated 21.11.2001 with the SDM, Kangra about the nefarious activities of the accused. This application was marked to the police.

According to the complainant, on 12.12.2001 at about 5:30 P.M. when he was returning from his fields through the path in front of the house of the accused and was going towards his own house, the accused came into his courtyard with a gun and aimed the gun at the complainant and fired at him. Fortunately, the shot did not hit the complainant but hit some dry leaves in front of the complainant. This incident was allegedly witnessed by his son Balwinder Singh, PW2. PW3 Smt. Veena Devi Bhabhi of the parties and PW4, Onkar Singh, who was the another brother of Baldev Singh, who did not actually witness the occurrence but heard the gun shot and when they turned around later towards the house of the accused, they found the accused holding a gun in his hand.

PW-12 SI, Incharge Police Post, Nagrota Bagwan came to the house of Baldev Singh to inquire about the allegation made in the application EXPW1/A. It is alleged that he also heard the sound of gun fire and after reaching the spot, immediately recorded the statement of complainant Baldev Singh u/s 154 Cr.P.C. (EX.PW 1/B). This statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR EX.PW11/A was registered. Thereafter, investigation was carried out. The gun was taken into custody. Some empty cartridges, pellets, gun powder etc. were taken into possession. Accused was charged for having committed the offences of murder and under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After trial, the learned trial Court found that the accused had in fact fired the gun shot but came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that it was fired with the intention of killing the complainant. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it was of the opinion that the gun was fired with view to scare Baldev Singh and not with the intention to kill him. The pellets were found at different places and none was immediately near the place where the complainant was standing. The accused was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 336 IPC, i.e, endangering human life and personal safety of others and also of having committed an offence punishable u/s 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused was, however, granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act after the report of the Probation Officer was called.

There are three appeals before us. One has been filed by the accused challenging his conviction and the other two appeals by the State, one for enhancement of sentence and one for setting aside the acquittal of the accused u/s 307 I.P.C.

We have carefully gone through the record of the case and the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates that gun shot was fired. According to the complainant, gun shot was fired after the accused took aim at him. However, this statement can not be taken at its face value because of the strained relations between the brothers. As far as the statement of PW2 son of the complainant is concerned, it appears that his statement is not entirely correct. Though, he states that he saw the accused firing the gun shot from the fields where he was working, but in cross examination, he admits that he and his father do not own any field in front of the house of the accused. It therefore, appears that he may not have seen the incident.

As far as PW3 and PW4, Bhabhi and real brother of the complainant/accused are concerned, they do not say that they had seen the accused firing. According to them, on hearing the gun shot when they turned around they saw that the accused was holding a gun in his hands. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel submits that these statements can not be believed because these witnesses admitted that they had no social relations with the accused. This may be true but the fact is that they are the real brother and Bhabhi of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that they had any dispute with the accused. There may not have been social relations because they were closer to the other brother but that does not mean that the statement can not be believed. In this scenario, the learned trial Court was justified and came to the conclusion that the gun shot had been fired by the accused.

Assuming that the gun shot was fired by the accused it does not appear that the accused fired the gun shot with an intention of killing or in fact injuring the complainant. We have perused the site plan EX.PW12/A. It does not give the exact distance between the place where the pellets were found and the place where the complainant was standing. The complainant was at a distance of 25 meters. The gun in question is a SBBL gun. The pellets would move outwards after leaving the gun. Therefore, by the time they covered a distance of 25 meters, they would have covered a substantial larger area. The fact that the complainant was no where immediately near the place where pellets were found and at least at a distance of more than one meter, itself indicates that the gun was not aimed at him. Therefore, we find no merits in these appeals filed by the State or by the accused as far as the merits are concerned. Coming to the appeal for enhancement of sentence, the accused was given the benefit of probation more than 9 years back and we see no reason why sentence should be enhanced at this stage. All the appeals are dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds are discharged.