KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.—In a trial for the offence under section 302 1 P.C. the appellant was convicted for that charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Feeling dissatisfied by his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case revealed from the first information report and the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are that the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Bhagirath (P.W. 5) was performed at village-Kheruwala. The bridal procession had come from village-Fajuwala and appellant Kanaram was a member of the bridegrooms party. On March 22, 1974 at 9.30 A.M. was the ceremony of sumathani (the function of farewell to the bride and the bridal procession), Bhagirath (PW. 5) had employed Sukhbir (P.W. 3) and deceased Nakli and his wife Smt. Premi (P.W. 4) to clean the utensils. At 9.30 A.M. deceased Nakli and Sukhbir (P.W. 3) were going outside to throw a bucketfull of water used for cleaning the utensils. At that time appellant Kana Ram fired a shot which hit Nakli. Nakli fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. On hearing the noise Naklis wife and other people reached there. Kana Ram took to heals along with the pistol. Sukhbir (PW. 3) immediately rushed to the Police Station Sadul-sahar and lodged the report Ex. P/9 before S.H.O. Bhanwar Lal (P.W. 6). Meanwhile Budha ram (P.W. 2) and a few others chased the appellant and succeeded in apprehending him. The appellant is said to have damaged the pistol by striking it against a stone. Bhanwar Lal (P.W. 6) S.H.O. went to the site and arrested the accused appellant. He ceased the pistol and the licence in the name of the appellant. The pistol was sealed. Bhanwarlal (P.W. 6) S.H.O. then went to the site of occurrence and saw the dead body of Nakli, He conducted necessary investigation at the site. Dr. Jaswant Singh conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Nakli and opined that the cause of death was pistol injury sustained by him. The pistol, cartridge and the blood stained clothes of Nakli were sent to Forensic Expert and Chemical Examiner.

3. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judical Magistrate, Hanuman-garh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh for trial. The learned trial Judge charge sheeted the appellant u/s. 302 I.P.C. and recorded his plea. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Six witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. The appellant in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had not fired the shot with intention to commit the murder of Nakli rather he along with others were firing the shots in the air at the time of sumathani. That after firing one or two shots he was loading the pistol. At that time the pistol accidentally went off and the bullet hit Nakli. That he felt perplexed and run away towards the bus-stand and was apprehended, He has denied the presence of Sukhbir (P.W. 3) and Smt Prema (P.W. 4) at the site. He also stated that he had no enmity with the deceased. The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of Sukhbir (P.W. 3) and Smt. Prema (PW. 4) on the point that in the evening previous to the day of occurrence appellant had used abusive language towards Nakli and then at the time of sumathani caused the murder of Nakli by voluntarily shot. The learned trial Judge therefore held the prosecution case established and passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier.

4. We heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. In this appeal Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to the nature of the offence only. It has been vhement-ly emphasized by Mr. Bishnoi that even

Click Here to Read the rest of this document