Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2011 Avtar Singh ..... Applicant-Appellant Versus Jaswinder Kaur and another ..... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant-complainant. -- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK J. Crl.Misc.No.8340 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Disposed of. Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 This petition under section 378(4) read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 29.07.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby the complaint of Avtar Singh, complainant, brought for an offence punishable under sections 307, 336, and 506 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --2-- Act has been dismissed acquitting Jaswinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur, respondents of the charge framed against them, has been filed by the applicant. The case of the prosecution as set up by Avtar Singh, applicant, in his complaint is as under:- On 26.11.1996 at about 10 AM the complainant and his father Ajit Singh were present at their house. All of a sudden, the complainant heard a noise of high volume coming from outside his house. Hearing the same, the complainant and his father went atop the roof of their house and saw outside their house. They noticed that Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of Balwant Singh, elder brother of Ajit Singh, and her mother Surjit Kaur wife of Balwant Singh were abusing the complainant and his family members. They were also speaking about some persons of the complainant having been killed and asking the complainant and others to go and lift them. In the meanwhile, Surjit Kaur brought a licensed 12 bore gun of Balwant Singh, loaded it and handed it over to her daughter Jaswinder Kaur. Jaswinder Kaur took the gun and fired a shot pointing the gun towards the complainant, with an intention to kill him. The complainant Avtar Singh ducked a little and, therefore, the shot missed its aim and crossed over the body of the complainant. The complainant with a view to get down the roof of his house, tried to hold the ladder. Jaswinder Kaur again fired a shot towards the complainant, but this time also the shot did not hit the complainant. The complainant and Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --3-- his father succeeded in getting down with the help of ladder and could save themselves. The motive behind the occurrence was that the accused were suspecting the complainant to be helping Gurpreet Singh and his mother Jagdish Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh. Gurcharan Singh is said to have got some dispute with his wife and her son Gurpreet Singh. It is claimed that on that day itself Gurcharan Singh on one side and his wife and Gurpreet Singh on the other side had fought with each other before this occurrence. The complainant and his father Ajit Singh lodged a report with the police at Police Station Sidhwant Bet. The police recorded the statement of complainant under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 05.12.1996 and a case was registered under section 336 read with section 34 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The police instead of filing challan had been asking the complainant to get the FIR cancelled. As the police did not take any action against the accused, the complaint was filed. After recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, both the accused were ordered to be summoned to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 307, 336 and 506 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. In the course of the proceedings, charge was framed for an offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 IPC against the accused (respondents here), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --4-- Besides the complainant Avtar Singh, who appeared as PW-2, the other witnesses examined are HC Balbir Singh and Jit Singh, as PW-1 and PW-3 respectively. Thereafter the complainant closed his evidence. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they have denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to them in the shape of questions. They pleaded complete innocence and false implication in the case. In defence, the accused have examined Gurcharan Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and HC Pargat Singh, as DW-1 to DW-3 respectively. Hearing learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the defence, learned trial court found the complainant to have failed to prove his case against the respondents. Consequently, the respondents were acquitted of the charge giving them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has brought this petition. The case of the complainant is that Surjit Kaur had brought the licensed 12 bore gun of her husband Balwant Singh and after loading it, gave it to her daughter Jaswinder Kaur. It is beyond my comprehension that a woman who brings a gun and loads it, would hand over the same to her daughter to fire shots therefrom, so to involve her own daughter in the crime. There was nothing to prevent Surjit Kaur to have herself fired the shots from the gun. Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --5-- The gun used is said to be licensed gun of Balwant Singh. No effort has been made to prove that Balwant Singh had any licensed gun. If the police had not conducted the investigation properly, the complainant could have at least summoned the licence clerk of the office of the concerned SDM to prove that Balwant Singh has got a license in his name and had a gun entered thereon. No evidence of this nature has been brought on the record. The gun is said to have been fired from the street of the complainant. The complainant at that time is said to be on the roof of his house. Both the shots fired from the gun missed the aim. There is no evidence brought on the record in the shape of bullets or pallets, which missed their target. The discharge from a 12 bore gun spreads after coming out of the barrel. The longer it travels, the larger is the area covered by the discharge. It is hard to believe that two shots fired from a 12 bore gun from a good distance had missed the target. In case of the first shot, the complainant has stated that he ducked a little and the shot went over his body. In the second case, there is no such plea on his part. The complainant could not move to either side to avoid the gun shot and this shot should have hit the complainant. It is very easy for a person to have levelled such type of allegations and it is very hard for the other party to rebut those allegations. In the absence of the gun shots hitting the complainant or any wall of his house, and proof of Balwant Singh having any such gun taken into account with the unnatural story of Surjit Kaur Crl.Misc.No. 171-MA of 2011 --6-- bringing the gun, loading it and handing over the same to her daughter Jaswinder Kaur to fire shots, were sufficient circumstances for learned trial court to hold the prosecution to have failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to our notice anything on account of which the given circumstances lose their significance. The findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused are based on the correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Court. No ground is, thus, made out to grant leave to file an appeal. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, the application is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE JUDGE 04.08.2011 dinesh