Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to the prosecution, on that day, a telephonic message was received from Civil Hospital, Sangaria Police Station by ASI Hari Ram relating to the incident. He, therefore, reached Civil Hospital, Sangaria to find out whether injured Ravinder Kumar, Chhotu Ram and Sakeela were in a position to give statements. ASI Hari Ram also sent wireless message to the Police Station, Sadar Dabwali. After some time, he received an information that Chhotu Ram, injured had succumbed to the injuries. Meanwhile, PW18-ASI Umed Singh of Sadar Dabwali Police Station reached the hospital at Sangaria and recorded the statement of injured Ravinder Kumar, resident of Village Chamar Khera, Police Station Sadul Shahar, District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan wherein he stated that he was the resident of Village Chamar Khera. His sister, Sunita Devi, got married to one Darshan Singh, resident of Dhani Choutala. On the previous day, i.e. on June 16, 1999, at about 8 p.m., the complainant had gone to see his sister Sunita Devi at Dhani Choutala where there was a quarrel between his brother-in- law-Darshan Singh and Bablu, son of Sat Narain (appellant herein). Darshan Singh then went to call Chhotu Ram (deceased)-brother of the complainant, from Village Chamar Khera in a jeep. In the night at about 1.30 a.m., Darshan Singh returned with deceased Chhotu Ram and his wife Sakeela. At about 3.30 a.m. on June 17, 1999, Sat Narain (appellant herein) armed with a gun, his son Bablu armed with a gandasi, his wife Savitri armed with a kasoli and Avtar Singh armed with lathi came in a Maruti car at Dhani of Darshan Singh and stopped the car on the way. They started abusing Darshan Singh, his wife and complainant Ravinder Kumar. Chhotu Ram (deceased) asked Sat Narain to go back, saying that they would talk in the morning. The complainant Ravinder Kumar with his brother Chhotu Ram (deceased) and Sakeela-PW15 then boarded a jeep and all of them started for Village Sangaria. The deceased Chhotu Ram was on the steering wheel of the jeep, complainant Ravinder Kumar was sitting by his side and Sakeela was sitting on the back seat. When their jeep reached near the car of the appellant, all accused raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant party for siding with Darshan Singh. The appellant Sat Narain fired a shot at Chhotu Ram from his licensed gun with intention to kill him and the pellets hit the right shoulder of the deceased. Sat Narain fired another shot towards the complainant Ravinder Kumar but he saved himself by taking shelter behind the jeep. The appellant fired third shot towards Sakeela and the pellets hit on her right hand. Accused Bablu, Savitri and Avtar Singh also caused injuries with their respective weapons to the complainant party. The pellets also hit on front portion of the jeep of the complainant party. They raised alarm and on hearing the noise, Darshan Singh, Vikram Singh and Sunita came running and raised a lalkara that complainant party need not be frightened and they had come. On seeing those persons coming near the scene of offence, the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The injured were then shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangaria. Chhotu Ram, however, succumbed to the injuries and died. The motive behind the attack was the dispute between Darshan Singh on the one hand and his brother Sat Narain on the other hand and complainant party was supporting the case of Darshan Singh.

7. The trial Court, on the basis of prosecution evidence and considering the defence version particularly of accused No.2 (appellant herein), held that the prosecution was successful in proving the incident in question. It was also established from the evidence that the complainant party was not the aggressor. No right of self defence was, therefore, available to appellant Sat Narain. From the injuries sustained by the deceased Chhotu Ram, PW14-Ravinder Kumar (complainant) and PW15-Sakeela, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had used gun which caused death of deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela. Accused Bablu and Avtar Singh had also caused injuries to deceased Chhotu Ram, Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) for causing death of deceased Chhotu Ram and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. It also convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC for attempt to commit murder of Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year. The Court also convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC for causing injuries to Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela. Accused Avtar Singh was thus convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307, IPC substantively. He was also convicted and sentenced for committing offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, no case has been made out for interference by this Court against the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court so far as the present appellant is concerned. As already noted by us, both the Courts believed the story of the prosecution, particularly evidence of PW14-complainant Ravinder Kumar, real brother of the deceased and injured as also PW15- Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, another injured eye-witness. The Courts rightly held that the appellant fired three times. The resultant effect was loss of life by Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela, wife of Chhotu Ram. The appellant also tried to hit the complainant Ravinder Kumar but he could escape himself by taking shelter of his vehicle (jeep) and thus could avoid injury by a fire arm. From the evidence, it is also clearly established and believed by the Courts that the appellant had re-

16. The trial Court considered the defence of the appellant and his right of self defence. Dealing with the evidence on record and negating the defence theory, it observed;

"There is no reason to disbelieve the oral assertions of the prosecution witnesses which has been well corroborated from the medial evidence. Even the occurrence has been admitted by the accused. Even the accused Sat Narain has taken the plea of self defence. The accused have also admitted the presence of the witnesses Ravinder Kumar Sakila, Vikram Singh, Darshan Lal and deceased Chhotu Ram at the place of occurrence. The defence version of the accused is that the complainant party was the aggressor. They attacked accused Sat Narain and the accused Sat Narain in his self defence opened fire but except the suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses there is no evidence on behalf of the accused to prove that the complainant party ever chased accused Sat Narain armed with deadly weapons with intention to harm his person and property. So, the plea of self defence set up by the accused fails. There is specific evidence against the accused that accused Sat Narain was armed with the double barrel licensed gun, accused Bablu was armed with a gandasi, accused Avtar Singh was armed with a Lathi and accused Savitri (since declared proclaimed offender) was armed with a kasuli. They all came to the Dhani of Darshan Lal at 3.30 a.m. at night. So, their common intention can be inferred. Had they no common intention to cause the death of Chhotu Ram, they might not have come to the Dhani of Darshan Lal (PW12) at odd hours armed with deadly weapons. Specific injury and role has been attributed to each of the accused. The testimony of the witness namely Darshan Lal (PW12), Vikram Singh (PW13), Ravinder Kumar, complainant/injured (PW14) and Sakeela, injured (PW15) is well corroborated by Dr. R.C. Ola (PW7) and medico legal reports Ex.PE, Ex.PG and Ex.PH and post mortem report Ex.PM. Hence, it is proved that the accused on 17.6.1999 in the area of village Choutala accused Sat Narain in furtherance of common intention of his co-accused Bablu, Avtar Singh and Savitri (proclaimed offender) caused the death of Chhotu Ram alias Lal Bahadur by firing shot at him and he also fired at Sakeela in furtherance of common intention of his remaining accused with the intention to cause her death and accused Avtar Singh and Bablu in furtherance of common intention of his co-accused Sat Narain, and Savitri (since declared proclaimed offender) caused simple hurt with sharp and blunt weapon to Ravinder Kumar. Therefore, the accused committed offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. So, accused Sat Narain is held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Bablu and Avtar Singh are held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Bablu and Avtar Singh are further held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Sat Narain is held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are convicted thereunder accordingly".