Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. DECIDED ON : 21.5.2008 Raghvender Singh Appellants. VERSUS State of Haryana Respondent. CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present:- Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana. JORA SINGH,J. Appellant-accused Raghvender Singh has impugned the judgment dated 9.12.1998, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1998, bearing First Information Report No. 574 dated 21.8.1997 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 335 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fined a sum of Rs.1,000/- only for the commission of offence punishable under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. 2 imprisonment for a period of six months and fined a sum of Rs.500/- only for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fined a sum of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused was further ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Police Station, City, Sonepat received ruqa from Government Hospital, Sonepat, in the morning of August 21,1997 regarding the admission of Bhupinder Singh and Bhim Singh with gun shot injuries. Sub Inspector Om Parkash had obtained copies of the medico-legal reports of both the injured from the Medical Officer and recorded the statement of injured Bhupinder Singh, after he was declared fit to make statement. Bhupinder Singh stated that he was residing with his brother in law Chander Singh at Rajiv Nagar, Sonepat. At about 8.30 A.M, he was waiting for Chander Singh to visit Railway Station on his bicycle. Raghvender Singh accused came out of the house of Hari Ram Pandit and was armed with the pistol. Accused had fired a shot hitting him on his left arm. Accused tried to run away from the spot but was apprehended by Bhim Singh to know as to why he (the accused) had fired a shot. Raghvender Singh fired another shot hitting the right arm of Bhim Singh. Pistol was snatched from the hands of the accused by Bhim Singh. Bhim Singh became unconscious and fell down. Pistol was picked up by Chander Singh. Number of persons came to the spot. Accused was tied with a Neem tree. Chander Bhan had shifted Bhupinder Singh and Bhim Singh to Civil Hospital for medical aid. Two months earlier, accused had quarrelled Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. 3 with the complainant at the shop of Surinder Mistri. Accused also doubted that Bhupinder Singh had bad eye on his wife. Matter was settled on the intervention of the respectables of the locality. Due to this grudge, accused fired shot to take revenge. Pistol was handed over to the police by Chander Singh. Vide order dated 17.12.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, this case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for trial. Accused was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. C.P.Arora, PW2, Raj Kumar Ahlmad District Magistrate, Sonepat, PW3 Head Constable Killa Singh, PW4- Constable Rajesh Kumar, PW5-Bhupinder, PW6- Dr. S.K.Gusain, PW7- Him Singh, PW-8 Head Constable Rajinder Singh, PW9 Constable Krishan Kumar, PW10- Chander Singh, PW11 Karan Singh, PW-12 Sub Inspector Om Parkash and tendered certain documents. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain the allegations levelled against him. Accused denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he was a tenant in the house of Hari Ram. The house of Chander Bhan is located right opposite to his house. Bhupinder Singh is the brother-in-law of Chander Bhan. Bhupinder Singh is a mischievous young boy, who had made an attempt to Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. 4 create illegal relations with his wife Sunita Devi. Two months earlier, he had an altercation with Bhupinder Singh, but there was a compromise at the instance of respectables of the area.On the day of occurrence, accused was on duty. In the morning of August 21, 1997, accused came from his office, then noticed Bhupinder Singh while rushing out of his house on learning about his arrival, Bhupinder Singh was caught hold and sought explanation, but he was beaten up by the accused and the other witnesses. Bhupinder Singh was armed with pistol and in the scuffle, there was a fire accidentally. Accused had no intention to injure any one. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence, but no evidence was led by the appellant-accused. Defence counsel for the appellant-accused argued that judgment of the lower Court is not challenged on the point of conviction but requested that lenient view be taken on the point of sentence, because appellant-accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 335 I.P.C,; he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324 I.P.C. and he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Injury on the person of Bhupinder Singh was found to be grievous in nature, but injury on the person of Bhim Singh was simple in nature. Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, argued that accused had fired a shot injuring the complainant and one Bhim Singh. Criminal Appeal No.1076-SB of 1998. 5 Offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is grievous. So, lenient view be not taken. In view of the statement of the defence counsel made at the bar, judgment of the lower Court is upheld on the point of conviction. Occurrence had takan place on 21.8.1997. Impugned judgment is dated 9.12.1998. Appellant-accused was apprehended on the spot and was ordered to be released on bail. Bail bonds were furnished on 21.9.1997. Doctor C.P.Arora had medico legally examined both the injured. X-ray was advised. In case of Bhim Singh, there was no fracture but injury on the person of Bhupinder Singh was found to be grievous in nature. Injury was not on the vital part but was on the left forearm. Appellant-accused was 23/24 years old at the time of alleged occurrence. Appellant-accused is not the previous convict but belongs to a poor family. At least, one chance should be given to improve instead of directing the appellant-accused to undergo imprisonment as per impugned judgment. I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be fully met, if appellant-accused is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone. I order accordingly. With this modification on the point of sentence, judgment of the lower Court is upheld. Appeal dismissed. 21.5.2008 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE