State of Punjab vs Parveen Kumari and ors.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present appeal, has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated July 5, 1983 recorded by Shri O.P. Dharwal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby Parveen Kumari, Ranjit Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted of the charge under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code but Rajneesh Kumar son of Parveen Kumari was convicted for an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code and was released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years.

The prosecution case in brief is that Bhim Sain deceased husband of Parveen Kumari accused used to reside at Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana Ram Parkash Bassi, PW3 brother of Bhim Sain was alleged to have owned house No. BVI269 at Talab Mandir Road, Ludhiana which was a double Storeyed house with three shops in it. Chuni Lal was a tenant of those shops but Parveen Kumari obtained Possession from him in April 1980 as a result of which Ram Parkash, his brothers and Sisters filed a civil suit in the Court of Shri S.S. Sandhu, Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana against Parveen Kumari and others for possession of the property. On July 17, 1982, Ram Parkash, his brother Manohar Lal, Narinder Singh and Avtar Singh, PWs came to the Court premises at Ludhiana in connection with the civil Suit which was fixed for hearing on that day. All the accusedrespondents had also attended the Court. The statement of Ram Parkash was recorded in the civil suit and when the case was adjourned Ram Parkash went towards the cabin of his counsel Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal. His brother Manohar Lal and Avtar Singh PW3 were accompanying him. When they reached near the cabin of Mrs. Sahi Advocate at 12.45 P.M, the respondents started abusing them. Ram Parkash looked back and saw Parveen Kumari handing over her licensed revolver to her son Rajneesh Kumar telling him not to spare Ram Parkash. Rajneesh Kumar then fired at Ram Parkash with the revolver and this shot hit him on his neck. The injured started bleeding and some blood fell on the ground. Ram Parkash reached the Court of Shri S.S. Sandhu in the injured condition and the counsel also arrived there. The occurrence was narrated to Shri S.S. Sandhu, Sub Judge who advised Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal to take Ram Parkash to the hospital information given by Ram Parkash was recorded by the Sub Judge. In the meantime Avtar Singh and Narinder Singh had caught hold of Rajneesh Kumar and his mother while Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh managed to run away. Ram Parkash went to Police Control Room opposite Judicial Court premises from where Sub Inspector Sudershan Singh took Ram Parkash to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and got him medically examined. Dr. Suresh Kumar Gupta conducted the medicolegal examination. On the same day Parkash was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was examined, by Dr. Sunil K. Singh who found a firearm injury on his person which was bleeding and was of fresh duration. The injury was declared simple in nature. Outside C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana Manohar Lal met Sub Inspector Baljinder Singh and made statement Exhibit PJ to him, on the basis of which ease was registered against the respondents. Investigation in the case was made and the respondents were challaned.

The contention of the respondents when examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was that they were falsely implicated in the case. Parveen Kumari stated that on July 17, 1982 she present in the Court of Shri S.S. Sandhu in a case pending against her. Her fatherinlaw had executed a will in her favour and she was in possession of one shop while the other two shops were in possession of Chuni Lal. Ram Parkash filed proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her and in those proceedings possession from Chuni Lal was delivered to her. Ram Parkash tried to take possession forcibly and on Feb. 16, 1981 he sent some persons at her residence who threatened her. Due to fear she was always keeping a revolver with her. On the day of occurrence she had kept her bag on the bench which was lying in the verandah attached to the Court Room and her son was also sitting there. She asked her son to take care of the revolver and she herself went in the Court for getting copy of the statement. Ram Parkash came outside the Court and she heard some noise. She came out and found that her son had been surrounded by the police officials. When she requested the police to let off her son she was also detained.

Rajneesh Kumar accused stated that his mother left the bag containing revolver and some papers on the bench outside the Court Room and asked him to take care of the same. She went inside the Court. After evidence was recorded Ram Parkash came out of the Court Room and told him that he had proved him a bastard child. He then told Ram Parkash that he may himself be a bastard and picked, up the bag out of fear that Ram Parkash may not take the same away. Ram Parkash caught him from his back side and in the suffle the revolver went off from the Jhola. After tome time two constables arrived and apprehended him. His mother at also detained. Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh pleaded their false implication.

Leave to appeal was granted in this case qua Parveen Kumari and, Rajneesh Kumar only and the appeal against Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh was dismissed vide order of this Court dated October 31, 1983. The learned counsel for the appellant simply assailed the acquittal of Parveen Kumari and release of Rajneesh Kumar on probation of good conduct under section 4(1) Probation of Offenders Act. It was urged that Rajneesh Kumar had committed an offence punishable under section 307, Indian Penal Code, as he had fired at Ram Parkash PW with a revolver from a close range. The learned counsel, however, could not point out any specific error in the judgment of the trial Court acquitting Parveen Kumari of the charge under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code. From the record, it is very well made out that there was a dispute regarding some property between Ram Parkash, his brothers and, sisters on the one side and Parveen Kumari on the other side and a civil suit was pending in the Court of Shri S.S. Sandhu, Sub Judge Ist Class in which statement of Ram Parkash was recorded on the day of occurrence which was Exhibit DB. In that statement, Ram Parkash even went to the extent of denying Parveen Kumari the status of his brother''s widow and also denied the paternity of Rajneesh Kumar. The relations between the parties were strained and there was serious animosity between them. Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had also taken place earlier and possession of the shops was delivered to Parveen Kumari. Parveen Kumari apprehended danger to her life as previously attempts on her life were made and Ram Parkash also made efforts to take forcible possession of the property. This necessitated the keeping of a revolver by Parveen Kumari. As she was not allowed to take the revolver inside the Court she left the bag containing the same on the bench of the Court and asked her son to take care of the same Due to bitter kind of enmity between the parties Parveen Kumari was roped in as an accused by fastening vicarious liability for the offence on her. Within no time after the occurrence Ram Parkash had appeared before the Sub Judge, in whose Court the civil suit was pending and he made misstatement Exhibit PR which was reduced into writing by Shri S.S. Sandhu. The case was adjourned at 12.39 p.m. and at 12.41 p.m. i.e. in two minutes Ram Parkash entered the Court Room with an injury which was profusely bleeding. He informed the Court that he was shot at by the son of Parveen Kumari. The counsel for Ram Parkash was present at that time. This statement was the first information regarding the offence and name of Parveen Kumari or the part attributed to her later on was not mentioned therein. Shri Satish Kumar Agarwal, PW 4 who was the counsel for Ram Parkash stated that he had been informed by Ram Parkash that Rajneesh Kumar fired at him on the instigation of Ranjit Singh, Darshan Singh and Parveen Kumari but he too did not advise Ram Parkash to narrate all these facts before the Sub Judge who had made a note of the occurrence on the order sheet of the civil suit. It was in these circumstances that the case against Parveen Kumari was held to be not free from reasonable doubt and she was given benefit of the same and was acquitted.

As regards the offence committed by Rajneesh Kumar, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that Rajneesh Kumar, had fired a shot at Ram Parkash with revolver Exhibit P1. But by firing that shot he had not committed an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code but the offence came under the purview of Section 324, Indian Penal Code, as there was no intention to commit, murder of the deceased. Dr. Sunil K. Singh stated that the injury on the person of Ram Parkash was simple in nature and it could not have resulted in death. The injured was fit to make a statement on the same evening and be was discharged on the third day. As per site plan prepared by the Draftsman, the fire was shot from a distance of 22 feet. When the revolver was seized it had still three bullets in it. Only one shot was fired which did not hit any vital part of the body. In the case of Bhagwan Din and others v. State, AIR 1967 Allahabad 580, it was held :

"The mere fact that a firearm was used to cause injuries to the victim will not necessarily bring the case under Section 307. There can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause the death merely because he used a firearm to cause hurt. The intention of the accused person has to be established from either the nature of his act actually committed by him or from other surrounding circumstances. Where the injury has actually been caused to the victim, the prosecution, while attempting to establish that the real intention of the accused was to cause an injury of the nature which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or was so imminently dangerous that it would cause death, had further to establish the intention or Knowledge of the accused as contemplated in Section 307 IPC. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and not on the accused."

In the instant case, the shot was fired from a distance and it did not hit any vital part of the body. A simple injury was caused and no further shots were fired although the revolver contained three more bullets. There was no evidence to establish with certainty the existence of requisite intention or knowledge of the respondent. Rajneesh Kumar respondent was, therefore, rightly convicted of the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. As he was a boy of the age of 15 years, he was given the benefit of probation.

The findings of the trial Court acquitting Parveen Kumari respondent and convicting Rajneesh Kumar for an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code are correct and are affirmed.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.