ORDER

Gian Chand (complainant) and the appellant accused were known to each other as they were neighbours living in the same locality at Karnal. It is the case of Gian Chand that fifteen days before the incident in question, the appellant/accused had come to his house and, when he was found drunk, he (the complainant) told him not to visit his house under the influence of liquor. The appellant took it as an insult. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 14th October, 1986, at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was returning to his house after attending his office duty. On the way just near his house, he stopped at a tea shop of Udhey Bhan where some persons were standing. Piare Lal also joined him. When they were going to their house, they came near the crossing (chowk) known as Lal Quan . At that place, four persons, namely, Ram Lal, Anant Ram and two others were playing cards. They stopped there and were watching the game, Ved Parkash (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) came there and questioned the complainant as to why he had insulted him the other day when he had come to his house. It is then alleged by the prosecution that the accused immediately took out a revolver from his pant pocket and fired at Gian Chand and the bullet hit his left toe. The bullet then hit against a hard substance, rebounded and hit Gian Chand on his right leg calf. The persons who were present there tried to apprehend the accused but he fled away. The injured was then taken to the hospital by Jai Devi (PW 5) where he was examined by Dr. V.K. Agarwal (PW 3) who noticed two injuries on the complainant. Doctor sent a ruqqa (Ex. PD) to the police post attached to the General Hospital. On receipt of this ruqqa, ASI Ajit Singh (PW 6) who was then incharge of this police post came to the hospital. ASI Ajit Singh (PW 6) then met the doctor who told him that the injured is in a fit condition to make a statement. ASI Ajit Singh then recorded the statement of Gian Chand (Ex.PA) and forwarded it to the police station, City Karnal, for recording formal FIR. It was so recorded by SI Kartar Singh being Ex. PA/1. SI Kartar Singh (PW 9) then went to the hospital and took over the investigation. The investigating officer carried out part of the investigation. On the next day i.e. 15th October, 1986 he went to the house of the accused. Accused was not found in his house; however, his brother Jai Parkash produced the accused at about 1.30 p.m. During interrogation, accused made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which led to the recovery of revolver. Seizure panchnama was accordingly made and the revolver with five cartridges and his licence were taken charge of. After completing the investigation, the accused was put up for trial for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he asserted that he is innocent and had committed no offence. The appellant has examined Anant Ram as his witness (DW 1).

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined Gian Chand-the complainant (PW 1) and other formal witnesses. It may be stated that one Piare Lal was the eye witness and was accordingly shown in the list of prosecution witnesses, but he was not examined during trial.

4. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of ocular evidence and other materials on record vide his judgment and order dated 12th August, 1987 found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, He also convicted him under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the first count, the learned Trial Judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fin