IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.535 of 2002 Decided on : 25th June, 2009 Prem Sagar alias Nand Kishore …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Appellant has appealed against the judgment dated 23.7.2002 of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 (1B) (a) of Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for offence, under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, for offence, under Section 25 (1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the evidence on record, is that on 30.6.1999, a dispute between the family members of PW-1 Telu Ram and the appellant, with regard to a path, was sought to be resolved with the intervention of Panchayat. On the orders of the Panchayat, obstruction caused by PW-1 Telu Ram and his family members, by placing fuel wood, was removed. It appears that after sometime, some members of the family of PW-1 Telu Ram again tried Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to block the path by stacking fuel wood. This led to exchange of hot words. Appellant then brought out a muzzle loading single barrel gun and fired a shot, a few pallets of which hit PW-1 Telu Ram, on right side of his waist and caused two simple injuries. 3. Matter was reported to the police. Appellant was challaned, under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He was charged with the said offences by the Sessions Court, after the case was committed to it by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. So, he was tried. On conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. Testimony of PW-1 Telu Ram, PW-2 Soma Devi, PW-3 Surinder Pal and PW-4 Atma Ram proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had fired a shot through gun Ext.P-2 and two pallets from the shot, fired by him, hit the right side of the waist of PW-1 Telu Ram, causing superficial injuries. Though PW-1 Telu Ram says that shot was aimed at him, yet the fact that the distance, from which the shot was fired, was only 6 feet and still only two pallets hit PW-1 Telu Ram, on one side of his body, i.e. the right side of his waist, suggests that the appellant did not aim the shot at PW-1 Telu Ram, but probably his intention was to scare him away. Had there been intention to kill PW-1 Telu Ram, many pallets would have hit him and that too on some vital part, because the distance was just 6 feet, as stated by Telu Ram himself. 6. Evidence, however, conclusively proves that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to PW-1 Telu Ram, with a fire arm and thereby …3… committed an offence, under Section 324 IPC, besides committing an offence, under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. So, his conviction, for offence, under Section 307 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted of the offence, under Section 324 IPC. 7. Appellant has been in custody for about six months during trial. I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is awarded sentence of imprisonment equivalent to the period of detention, already undergone by him during trial, in respect of both the offences, i.e. under Section 324 IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and the sentence of fine is kept intact. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of. June 25, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J