1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2002
  6. /
  7. January

Rameshwar Son Of Maiya Din vs State

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2002


ORDER M.C. Jain, J.
1. The appellant is Rameshwar who Is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-6-1981 passed by Sri R. R. Jatav, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 186 of 1980 convicting him under Section 307, IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.
2. At the hearing of the appeal, none has appeared from the side of the appellant, though he is represented on record by Sri R. Pande, Advocate and is on bail. I have heard learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in opposition of this appeal and have gone through the record, which has been summoned. The appeal is being decided on merits.
3. The facts lie within a short compass. Four persons including the appellant were tried. Out of the remaining three, two were his brothers and another one was his nephew. Some time before the incident, murder of Badri was committed in which Mata Deen was involved as an accused. When he was in jail, the complainant Manni Lal was looking after his agricultural land. The accused did not like it. On 8-11-1979 at about 5 p.m. when Manni Lal was coming back after easing himself and was near the field of Mata Deen, the present accused appellant fired on him with gun causing gunshot injuries in his left thigh. His three associates also allegedly fired which did not hit him. He lodged the FIR at the concerned Police Station, the next day at 12.00 noon. A case was registered and investigated. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. B. N. Mehrotra P.W. 4 on 9-11-1979 at 4.50 p.m.
4. The following two injuries were found on his person :
1. Gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep on inner side of left thigh. Wound is through and through of thigh communicating with gun-shot wound of exit. There is blackening present around the wound.
2. Gun-shot wound of exit 11 cm x 10 cm x muscle deep (10 cm) just behind the injury No. 1 on the back of thigh, muscles are exposed. Skin is everted. Slight foul smell is coming from the wound.
5. Obviously, injury No. 2 was the exit wound of injury No. 1. The injury was simple and duration was about one day.
6. The investigation was conducted by Sarnam Singh P.W. 5.
7. At the trial, the prosecution relied on testimony of Manni Lal P.W. 1, complainant and Divia P.W. 2. Both of them supported the prosecution case about the shot having been fired by present appellant on the given date, time and place. There was third eyewitness Bhagwan Deen P.W. 3 also who, however, was declared hostile.
8. On scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that Manni Lal P.W. 1 and Divia P.W. 2 withstood the test of cross-examination. There was no apparent cause for false implication of the appellant imputing shooting to him by the injured and witness Divia P.W. 2. Divia P.W. 2 was named as eye-witness in the FIR itself.
9. There is, however, a mitigating circumstance reducing the gravity of the offence. As per the injury report, some blackening was noticed around the wound meaning thereby that It had been caused from a distance of 4-6 feet. It is also to be observed that the injury was simple. The fact is also there that the shot was not repeated by the appellant. It is apparent that despite firing of shot from close range, he did not aim at vital part of the victim. Non-vital part (thigh) was aimed at it is an indicator that intention to kill was not there and the appellant only wanted to chastite the victim with whom he was annoyed for looking after the cultivation of Mata Deen.
10. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to convert the conviction of the appellant from ;Section 307, IPC to Section 324, IPC. The offence under Section 324, IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of three years or with fine or with both. The incident took place nearly 23 years' back in November 1979. No useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail after such a long lapse of time unsettling his settled life. The ends of justice would be met by converting his sentence to fine of Rs. 7,500/- and in default of the same to undergo 9 months' R.I.
11. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Rameshwar is converted from Section 307, IPC to Section 324, IPC. His sentence is also modified and he would pay a fine of Rs. 7,500/-for the offence under Section 324, IPC. In default of the payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.
12. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Rameshwar Son Of Maiya Din vs State


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

28 November, 2002
  • M Jain