Jarmej Singh vs State

Jindra Lal, J.—This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 1967, at the instance of Jarmej Singh, and Criminal Revision No 1071 of 1967, at the instance of Kashmir Singh, as they both arise out of the same judgment.

Jarmej Singh has been sentenced to two years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, on two counts, for having fired a gun at Kashmir Singh P.W. 3 and Joginder Singh P.W. 4 on the 4th of February, 1966, at about 6.30 P.M. and caused injuries to him.

There is no prior enmity between Jarmej Singh appellant and Kashmir Singh or the other injured Joginder Singh. It is in the evidence of Kashmir Singh P.W. 3 that earlier on the day of the occurrence he had left his camel in his gram field and at about 6 30 P.M. he had gone to bring it back with his Siri, Joginder Singh P.W. 4. The camel apparently used to get in jubilant mood and start yelling at people. When Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh went near the camel, it started yelling. After a little while, when Jarmej Singh accused was coming from the railway station and going towards his Haveli through the cotton field of Kishan Singh, the camel yelld again. The accused got annoyed and asked Kashmir Singh why his camel was yelling and there was some sort of abusing between the parties. It is claimed that the accused told Kashmir Singh and Joginder that he would not allow their camel to yell and fired his gun hitting Kashmir Singh in front little above the right knee. Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh started running away towards their houses, when the accused is alleged to have fired another shot at them, which caused injuries to Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh at their backs. Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh were taken to the Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, where they arrived at about 3-30 A.M. and they were medically examined by Dr. K.L. Nayyar. Dr. Nayyar sent a ruqa to the police-station. The ruqa was received by Sub-Inspector Mohan Singh P.W. 11 at about 3-35 A.M. and he came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Kashmir Singh at 4-40 A.M. on the basis of which a First Information Report was recorded at police-station Jalalabad.

Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh have fully supported the prosecution Version. Dr. K.L. Nayyar found the following injuries on Kashmir Singh :

Three lacerated wounds in an area of 21/2" X 21/2" size 1/16" round, 1/16", X 1/12" and 1/12" round on the left back chest, middle part, 31/2" from the posterior axillary line.

A lacerated wound l/10" x 1/12" on the left back chest 21/2" medial to injury No. 1

A lacerated wound 1/16" round on the right buttock, 11/2" below the iliac crest.

A lacerated wound 1/8" x 1/10" x 1/2" on the inner side of right thigh, 3" above the knee cap. A hard substance was felt in the wound on probing.

Joginder Singh was found to have the following injuries :

Lacerated wound on the whole of back chest 65 in number size varying from 1/16" round to 1/16" x 1/12" extending upto the shoulder.

3 lacerated wounds 1/16" round 1/12" x 1/10" and 1/12/X1/8" on the left back chest, middle part in an area 4".

A lacerated wound 1/8" X 1/12" on the left buttock, middle part.

A lacerated wound 1/8" X 1/10" on the lumber spine lower part.

Two lacerated wounds l/8" x 1/8" and l/12" X l/10" on the right buttock upper part.

Six lacerated wounds size 1/12" to 1/16" on the outer and back parts of right upper arm.

A lacerated wound 1/16" X 1/8" on the outer side of right upper arm, 1" above the elbow. Apellet was been impacted in the wound which was taken out and was sent in a sealed bottle.

A lacerated wound 1/6" X 1/8" on the inner side of right upper arm 21/2" above the elbow. Apellat was seen impacted in the wound, which was taken out and was later sent in a sealed bottle.

Two lacerated wounds 1/10" round on the back of right elbow.

Four lacerated wounds 1/12" round on the back of right hand and wrist.

A lacerated wound 1/12" x 1/16" on the outer side of the right side of the neck middle part.

There is no manner of doubt that both Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh received gunfire injuries and consequently both were present when the incident occurred. Santa Singh P.W. 5 stated that he used to cultivate land jointly with Hardip Singh, but that he was at village Ratta Thehar where the occurrence took place. At the time of the occurrence he was transporting some sugarcane plants to a crusher nearby and he saw Jarmej Singh accused coming with a gun going towards his Haveli. He supports Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh with regard to the yeling of the camel and the quarrel between Kashmir and Joginder on one side and Jarmej Singh on the other, and the firing by Jarmej Singh. He also supports these witnesses by stating that Jarmej Singh first fired one shot and then when Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh were running away, he fired another shot at them. He stated that he saw the incident from a distance of 40 or 50 Karams.

The accused was arrested on the 11th of February 1966 and the claim of the prosecution is, as deposed to by Sub Inspector Mohan Singh that the accused had been absconding during this period. The accused denied the incident as well as the fact of his absconding. He stated, when examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, that he had been implicated falsely on account of enmity. According to him 10 years previously he had gone in a marriage party of Tehal Singh, a brother of Kashmir Singh, and while Kashmir Singh teased a girl, who was a relation of the accused, a quarrel took place and it is for this reason that he had been falsely implicated. In my view, this defence of the accused has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

The place of the occurrence has not been seriously challenged before me and from the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, Kashmir Singh, Joginder Singh and Santa Singh, it is clear that the occurrence took place, as alleged. A suggestion was put to Kashmir Singh P.W. 3 that a thief had come to steal his cattle and while running away he had fired at Kashmir Singh etc. but this has not been believed. The incident took place at 6.30 P.M. and in any case it was a moonlit night, the full moon was out on the 5th of February, 1966, and, therefore, the accused could have easily been identified by the eye-witnesses.

Learned Counsel for the appellant laid much stress on an argument that the case does not fall within the provisions of section 307, Indian Penal Code, and has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, . There an injury was caused on a vital region with a knife, but no vital organ had been cut. The learned Judges came to the conclusion that the appellant in that case had no enmity with the person injured and had merely gone to defend another person, and therefore, the case did not fall within the provisions of section 307, but u/s 24, Indian Penal Code. Their Lordships took into consideration the fact that there was no evidence with regard to the length of the Chhura alleged to have been used and whether it could penetrate the abdomen deep enough to cause an injury to a vital organ and came to the conclusion that the appellant had neither the intention to cause death, nor the intention to cause such injury as he knew to be likely to cause death, nor he intended to inflict an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death nor he know that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or cause an injury as is likely to cause death.

In the present case the accused fired a gun from a distance of about 22 Karams. There is evidence that two shots were fired, one of them hitting Kashmir Singh in front of the knee. Even if, as is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, only one shot was fired, in my view the case would squarely fall u/s 307, Indian Penal Code There is no allegation that Kasmir Singh or Joginder Singh did anything which would have justified Jarmej Singh firing at them and the fact that all the injuries, excepting one, are at the back of the eyewitnesses would indicate that they were running away when the second shot was fired at them.

While Mr. Har Parshad, Learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that all the injuries caused were simple and therefore the sentence of two years'' imprisonment is too height, Mr. R.M. Suri, who appears for Mr. L.M. Suri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner Kashmir Singh in Criminal Revision No. 1071 of 1967, contends that the sentence imposed is inordinately low and prays that the sentence be suitably enhanced and that compensation may be awarded to Ms client, for the injuries caused to him. But keeping all the circumstances of the case into consideration I find that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is commensurate with the guilt of the accused. I, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant and dismiss Criminal Appeal 854 of 1967. Since the sentence awarded does not seem to be inadequate, Criminal Revision No. 1071 of 1967 on behalf of Kashmir Singh is also without merit and is dismissed.