Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 v. State (Union Territory Chandigarh)

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 and of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. Tersely put, it is the case of the prosecution that on 10.7.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., Mansur Ali resident of House No. 3060, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh was sitting in his office in his house and was giving dictation to his Steno. Suddenly HC Surinder Singh whose name was visible from his name plate on his shirt, came to his office and demanded one glass of water. He was stinking of liquor. After having water, he took out his service Revolver and said that there were 10 bullets in the same and he will kill 10 people. He, therefore, asked the Steno and Clerk to go out and then aimed at the complainant made him to stand and asked to raise his hands. Immediately the complainant pushed his hands towards ceiling and bullet fired by the accused hit the ceiling. He was attempting to repeat the shot and in the said exercise one unused bullet fell down from his service revolver. The accused was not known to him personally but he has learnt that he was Beat Officer of their lane earlier. He threatened to kill him and was also abusing certain police officers through out. While running away, he left his wireless set and Bajaj Chetak Scooter No. PAU 3291 there. He was under the influence of liquor and Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 3 tried to kill him with his service revolver. He ran away only after the ladies of the house started shouting on hearing the gun shot. He further stated that the incident took place in the presence of R.K.Sood his Steno and his Clerk Maler Singh Thakur who were also present alongwith his servant Balbir Singh. On receiving this narration of the incident, the police swung into action by lodging FIR under reference and launched its investigations. The accused was arrested and after completing all the formalities of the investigations, challan against the accused was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. However, the leaned Judicial Magistrate found that the allegations as contained in the FIR against the accused are for the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, the instant case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for trial.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merits. Complainant, while appearing in the witness box, has categorically deposed that on 10.7.1999 at about 5.30 p.m., he was present in his Office and was dictating to his Steno. The Clerk of the complainant was also sitting in the Office. Appellant entered the Office of the complainant and demanded a glass of water. Appellant was stinking of liquor. Balbir Singh, servant of the complainant went inside to get a glass of water for the appellant. Appellant, however, took out a revolver and stated that there were 10 bullets in his revolver and he would kill 10 people on that Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 4 day. Appellant asked the Steno and Clerk of the complainant to leave the Office. Then, the appellant asked the complainant to raise his hands and slowly came towards the complainant by aiming his revolver at him. Sensing trouble, appellant came forward to catch hold of the hand of the appellant but the appellant fired a shot and the same hit the ceiling. In case, the complainant had not turned the revolver, the shot would have hit the complainant in his face. Appellant again tried to bring the revolver in a firing mode but he could not do so and the unused cartridges fell down on the floor. At this point of time, the ladies from the house came in the Office of the complainant and started raising alarm. Clerk and Steno also started raising alarm. Appellant kept on abusing the complainant that certain Police Officers were known to him and thereafter, he fled away from the spot along with his pistol. Appellant also left his Scooter at the spot as he was unable to start the same. PW3 Malar Singh, PW4 R.K.Sood and PW5 Balbir Singh have supported the testimony of the complainant on material aspects. PW7 Dr.Bidhi Chand, who had examined the appellant on

10.7.1999 at 7.20 p.m. observed as under:- “1. He was smelling of alcohol

2. having slurred speech,

3. his gait was staggering;

4. also found conjutiva congested, pupils mildly dilated and sluggish reacting to light bilaterally. I found that he has taken alcohol and was under the influence of Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 5 alcohol at the time of examination.” Section 307 IPC reads as under:- “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” An offence, in order to amount to an attempt to murder, the act attempted must be such that if not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause death of the victim. To constitute the offence no injury need be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt bodily injury is caused the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain conviction under Section 307 the intention to kill should be clearly proved by circumstances. The intention is not gatherable merely from the seriousness of resultant injury. Thus, what is material for the purpose of Section 307 is the intention or knowledge, not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent. In the present case, the statements of the complainant and Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 6 PWs 3, 4 and 5 inspire confidence. Their statements are also corroborated by the testimony of Doctor Bidhi Chand, PW7 to the effect that the appellant was under the influence of liquor on the alleged day of occurrence. The complainant had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The appellant, when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took up the following pleas:- "I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case. I knew the complainant Mansoor Ali earlier to the incident and was on visiting terms to his house. As a matter of routine I used to visit and him and on 10.7.99 also I went to see him the evening. I kept my service pistol and wireless set on the table. The service pistol was loaded and was in action at that time. The complainant while sitting in his chair picked up the pistol and started looking to it. Incidentally, the trigger of the pistol was got pressed from the complainant and a shot went towards the ceiling. I immediately snatched the pistol from the complainant and unloaded the same in a haste and during the process one of the bullet fell down on the floor about which I came to know lateron. Due to the same hot exchange took place between me and the complainant. The complainant in order to save himself called so many lawyers and informed the police also. I also informed my superiors regarding the said incident and to take action but as lawyers had pressurized the high officials and threatened to openly protest if the action is not taken. Under this pressure, I was falsely implicated in the present. I was not having any enmity with complainant and had no intention to kill him. At that time nobody was sitting in office. Criminal Appeal No.1564-SB of 2006 7 However, R.K.Sood came lateron. Maler Singh was not there." However, the plea taken by the appellant fails to inspire confidence. Although in this case, the complainant had not suffered any injuries yet the fact remains that the appellant had intention to fire a shot at the complainant with intention to kill him. DW3 Constable Sukhbir Singh deposed that the appellant had been given awards and there were sixteen entries regarding his good conduct in the service book. However, this fact in itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses qua the occurrence. The statements of DW1 Mukesh Mittal and DW2 Constable Sewa Singh also failed to rebut the testimony of the prosecution witnesses qua the occurrence. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Act. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. May 19, 2010 ( Sabina ) Judge