Allowed

Ganga Jal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2014CRA-S/1706/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder with an airgun, the High Court allowed the appeal. The appellate court held that evidence from the Forensic Science Laboratory showing the weapon could not fire the recovered slug, along with medical opinion that the injury did not require a gun, created reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside and t

What did the court decide?

The appeal is accepted; the conviction recorded by the trial Court is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine is cancelled.

Ganga Jal Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

�� 

¶2

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

��

��

Ganga Jal

..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

Coram: �� !"��#$��!�%�&�"��%�$%��

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajat Mor, DAG,Haryana for the respondent'State.

¶12

¶13

**!�%�&�"��%�$%��'�#�()"� *

¶14

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.2003, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 17.11.97/03.07.2001, Sessions Trial No. 28 of 31.1.2001 convicting and sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years with fine of � 2000/' and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC”) are under challenge in this appeal brought by the convict'appellant.

¶15

Respondent'State is contesting the appeal.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

¶17

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶18

�� 

¶19

It is argued on behalf of the appellant that it has come on record in the form of report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. PL) that airgun, which according to the case of the prosecution, was used in the occurrence to cause injuries on the person of the complainant' injured PW4 Arjun, could not be used to fire the air'gun slug, which was recovered from the body of above said PW4 Arjun and that doctor'PW1 Dale Singh has admitted in his cross'examination that the injury found on the person of PW4 Arjun was not dangerous to life. On the strength of the submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the story of the prosecution is, thus, falsified and this entitles the appellant to acquittal.

¶20

However, learned State counsel contests the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, supports the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶21

Nothing more has been urged on either side.

¶22

A perusal of the record would show that the prosecution had booked the appellant on the allegation that PW4 Arjun had made a statement, Ex. PF, before the Investigating Officer to the effect that on 14.6.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., he, alongwith his brother Dhan Singh and his cousin brother Ram Sarup, was sitting on a cot in front of his house when at about 9.30 p.m., appellant Ganga Jal armed with a .12 bore gun came there and proclaimed to teach him (PW4 Arjun) a lesson on account of earlier fight and with a view to kill him, opened firing upon him. The shot hit on the back side of his left shoulder. Complainant took shelter behind a camel cart lying parked

¶23

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶24

�� 

¶25

nearby in the street. The appellant fired another shot but it did not hit the complainant. The appellant then fired another shot aiming at Dhan Singh but the said Dhan Singh managed to hide himself and escaped from the shot. Dhan Singh and Ram Sarup hurriedly managed to enter their houses. Complainant raised an alarm upon which the appellant left the scene carrying his weapon along.

¶26

The matter having been reported to the police, an investigation followed on complaint, the above statement, whereby a report in terms of Section 173 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,'' Cr.P.C.”) was presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶27

The jurisdictional Magistrate, on perusal of the report, prima facie found an offence under Section 307 IPC having been committed and the offence being triable by the Court of Session, committed the case to the Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in turn, entrusted the case for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court ).

¶28

The trial Court on perusal of materials available before it, in the light of submissions made on behalf of prosecution and defence, found grounds to proceed against the appellant under Section 307 IPC and, accordingly, charged the appellant for that offence. On a plea of non'guilty put up on behalf of the appellant. prosecution was called upon to bring evidence in proof of accusation against the appellant.

¶29

Prosecution examined Dr. Dale Singh as PW1 to prove injuries on the person of the injured'complainant, PW4'complainant

¶30

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶31

�� 

¶32

Arjun to prove the ocular account of the episode, PW2 HC Ram Ishan, PW 6 Inspector Karam Singh and PW3 Constable Dharamvir to provide the necessary links. After evidence of the prosecution was complete, the trial Court examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to put forth his explanation qua the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. The appellant denied all these circumstances as false and incorrect and reiterated the plea of his innocence and of false implication.

¶33

No evidence in defence was led.

¶34

Learned trial Court, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence and on perusal of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that prosecution was able to establish guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as herein'before stated. Hence, this appeal.

¶35

On perusal of the record summoned from the trial Court, it is revealed that the doctor who has examined the injured' complainant PW4 Arjun has been examined as PW1. According to the medico legal report (Ext.P1), following injury was found on the person of the injured'complainant:'

¶36

“ A lacerated oval shaped wound on left side of

¶37

chest 8 cm below and lateral to angle of left scapula. There was no exist wound on chest, abdomen and no other injury was found on the body. Size of the wound

¶38

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶39

�� +

¶40

was ½ cm x ¼ cm x depth cannot be measured due to fear of the injury on the vital organ. Injury was surrounded by swelling of 2 cm x 2 cm.”

¶41

However, while being cross'examined on behalf of the appellant, doctor stated that the injury referred to above was not dangerous to life and it could be possible by a pointed weapon. This assertion of the Medical Officer gains importance in view of report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PL) based on examination of the air'gun, which according to prosecution was used to inflict the injury on the person of the injured complainant. This report reads as under:'

¶42

“Attempts were made to test fire .22” airgun slugs from .22” airgun W/1. However, airgun slug could not be fired from airgun W/1 and got lodged in the barrel near the breech end. Its firing mechanism was found in working order. However, it cannot fire airgun slugs in present conditions.

¶43

.22” airgun slug marked BC/1 was washed, dried, weighed and examined under stereo and microscope. No barrel marks could be detected on slug BC/1.

¶44

Shirt contained in parcel No.1 was examined to detect the presence of gunshot discharge residue. Lead was detected in the margins of the hole. Hole was also examined under stereo microscope.”

¶45

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶46

�� 

¶47

It would stand repetition that according to Forensic Science Laboratory report, Ext.PL, the airgun slugs stated to have been recovered from the body of the injured'complainant could not be fired from the air'gun, which was sent for examination and was stated to have been used in the occurrence. The Forensic Science Laboratory report goes on to state that even though firing mechanism of the airgun was found to be in working order but still the airgun slugs could not be fired from it in its present condition. Not only this, according to the report, the airgun slug marked BC/1 was washed, dried, weighed and examined under stereo microscope and still no barrel marks could be detected on slug BC/1. This leads nothing to doubt that the airgun slugs stated to have been recovered from the body of the injured'complainant were not fired from the airgun which was stately used in the occurrence. The result of the Chemical Examination of the gun and airgun slugs as aforestated when read in conjunction with the opinion of Medical Officer Dr. Dale Singh PW1 that possibility of the injury found on the person of the injured complainant having been caused by some pointed instrument, raise suspicion as regards usage of the air'gun in the occurrence. Undoubtedly, it was for the prosecution to explain as to how the injury was caused on the person of the injured complainant but amazingly no effort has been made on behalf of the prosecution in this direction. The situation further is under consideration of the trial Court with regard to report of Chemical Examiner that airgun and airgun slugs sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The trial Court

¶48

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶49

��

¶50

�

¶51

has chosen not even to make a mention of these findings inspite of the fact that these findings were very material for just disposal of the matter before the trial Court itself.

¶52

The above circumstances in any case bring the prosecution story particularly, the manner of receipt of injury by the injured'complainant Arjun under a very thick cloud of doubt and indisputably benefit of such a doubt is well deserved by the appellant. That being so, finding of the trial Court that prosecution has proved guilt of the appellant also beyond reasonable doubt is liable to be set aside.

¶53

As a consequence, the appeal is accepted, conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence of which he had been charged and convicted.

¶54

January 23,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk �� JUDGE

¶55

Kant Nirmal 2014.02.07 18:02 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

Ganga Jal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Jal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Manek Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajesh @ Nikka Vs State of Haryana

Gurdeep Singh etc. Vs State Ofpb.

Bagher Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Naib Singh etc. Vs Hy.State

Geeta Bedi and Anr. Vs Mamta Rani and Anr.