IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.37 of 2003 Date of decision : July 15, 2009 Puran Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has challenged his conviction for an offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, ordered by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 16th March, 2000, and affirmed by the Sessions Court, in appeal, vide judgment dated 20th February, 2003. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 6th January, 1996, petitioner and deceased Pritam Chand, accompanied by four-five other persons of the village, went to a forest, located near their village, for hunting. In the evening, all the members of the hunting party, except the petitioner and the deceased, returned. Petitioner and the deceased, who were close friends, stayed back, because they did not want to return empty handed. They took positions in opposite directions, at a distance of 100 metres, from each other, to shoot at boars, which they thought would be coming out of the bushes situated in between their positions. Around 6.00, when it had started going dark, petitioner noticed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… something moving out of the bushes, looking like a boar. He blew whistle to assure himself that it was not deceased Pritam Chand. There was no response from deceased Pritam Chand. He felt assured that what had moved out of the bushes was a boar. He fired a shot. When he went to the site where the target had been spotted, he found that it was deceased Pritam Chand, who had been hit by his shot and was lying dead. He returned to the village, confessed to his wife, PW-3 Sheela Devi, and Pradhan of the Panchayat, PW-2 Onkar Singh. PW-2 Onkar Singh advised him to go to the Police Station and lodge report. He then went to the Police Station and lodged report Ex. PW-16/A. On the basis of the report, case was registered vide FIR Ex. PW-16/B. Gun Ex. P- 19 was produced by the petitioner to the police. It was sent to the Ballistic Expert, who gave the opinion that shot had been fired through the gun recently. 3. Petitioner was tried for offences, under Sections 304- A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Trial Court convicted him of offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. He appealed to the Sessions Court. His appeal has been dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General. 5. Petitioner did not deny that it was a shot fired by him through his gun Ex. P-19, which hit the deceased and caused his …3… death. He, however, pleaded that he fired the shot, thinking that his target was a boar. 6. The two Courts below have used the statement made by the petitioner to his wife, PW-3 Sheela Devi, and to the Pradhan of the Panchayat, PW-2 Onkar Singh, as also the FIR Ex. PW-16/B, as his confession. While doing so, the two Courts below have lost sight of the basic rule regarding use of a statement of an accused. Statement of an accused has to be used in its entirety and pick and chose is not permissible. When it is to be used, all its parts, both inculpatory and exculpatory, are to be taken into account. 7. Statement made by the petitioner cannot be said to be a confession of his guilt, because in the very statement Ex. PW-16/A, used as confession, he explained that before firing the shot he assured himself that the object seen by him coming out of the bushes was not deceased Pritam Chand and this he did by blowing whistle. He stated that when there was no response to his whistle, he felt assured that the object was a boar. Admittedly, it was growing dark at that time, as the time was around 6.00 in the evening and the date was 6th January, 1996, when the sun sets around 5.30 or 5.35. In view of the abovestated position, the petition is allowed. Impugned judgments of the trial Court and the Sessions Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, as aforesaid, are set aside and he is acquitted. July 15, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J