Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Chiddi (Smt.) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 63, 99 of 1992
Decided On : 27-05-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307 IPC, SECTION 326 IPC, SECTION 27 ARMS ACT - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - INJURIES CAUSED BY FIREARM - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 307 IPC SET ASIDE, CONVERTED TO SECTION 326 IPC - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 27 ARMS ACT SET ASIDE DUE TO LACK OF PROOF OF NO LICENSE - SENTENCE REDUCED CONSIDERING TIME GAP AND AGE OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Accused appellants Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh were convicted by the Trial Court for offenses under Sections 307, 326 IPC, and 27 of the Arms Act. The incident involved a dispute over illicit relations between Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh, leading to a shooting where multiple individuals were injured by firearms.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention of the accused appellants to cause death, as no vital body parts were targeted and the accused did not fire repeatedly. The Court converted the conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC, considering the injuries caused by firearms. However, the Court acquitted Smt. Chiddi of the offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act due to the prosecution's failure to prove that she did not possess a valid license for the pistol used in the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused appellants had the intention to cause death, as required for a conviction under Section 307 IPC. 2. Whether the prosecution proved that Smt. Chiddi did not possess a valid license for the pistol used in the incident, as required for a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the absence of injuries to vital body parts and the lack of repeated firing indicated a lack of intention to cause death, warranting the conversion of the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC. 2. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the absence of a valid license for the pistol used by Smt. Chiddi, leading to her acquittal under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the accused appellants. The conviction under Section 307 IPC was converted to Section 326 IPC, and the sentences were reduced considering the time gap and the age of the accused. Smt. Chiddi was acquitted of the offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are arising out of the same judgment passed by Trial Court, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order.
2. Both the accused appellants - Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh have filed two separate appeals assailing the judgment dated 18.2.1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in sessions case No. 33/1990 whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted Smt. Chiddi for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 100 as well as rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 100 respectively and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused appellant Gurtej Singh was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and has been punished to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
3. Facts in brief are that one Gurdas Singh Jot his 'parcha bayan' recorded on 31.12.1988 mentioning that his married sister Chiddi is living with one Gurtej Singh at his village. One raising objection against her illicit relations; both of them came to the house of Gurdas Singh and Chiddi fired a bullent through a 12 bore pistol at Jagtar Singh, which hit his knee. At that time, Jeet Singh, Sewa Singh and Jagtar Singh were also there. Gurtej Singh fired through 12 bore gun with the intention to murder them. Jeet Singh got injured on his left arm, Sewa Singh got injured on right arm and Gurdas Singh got the bullet injuries on his left knee. On the basis of this 'parcha bayan' F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act against the accused appellants.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act.
5. After hearing charge arguments, charges were framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. and Smt. Chiddi was additionally charged for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
6. The prosecution got 11 witnesses examined. Statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and no witness was examined by the defence side.
7. After hearing arguments and taking the evidence into consideration, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as mentioned above.
8. The impugned judgment dated 18.2.1992 has been assailed by both the accused appellants while separately filing these appeals on the ground that the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. It has been alleged that on the spot, Gurdayal Singh and Harbans Kaur were also present at the time of occurrence but they have not been examined. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives and have got inimical relations with Smt. Chiddi and Gurtej Singh on account of their illicit relations. The prosecution has falsely implicated the accused appellants because of this enmity. There is no truth in the prosecution story, thus, the conviction held by learned Trial Court be set aside.
9. Both the Counsels appearing on behalf of accused appellants have strongly argued that no injury is alleged to have been caused on any vital part of the body of any of the injured persons. Had there been any intention to commit murder, the accused appellants should have fired on some vital part of bodies of the injured persons, which goes to show that there was no intention of the accused appellants to cause death of the complainant and his fellows.
10. As regards the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act qua Smt
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
