From the companytents of FIR read with the statements of injured and eyewitnesses, it emerges out that there was a marriage function of son of the appellant and numbersooner did the rituals of marriage were performed at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant fired from a licensed gun pointing towards the roof and caused injuries to 5 persons.
Facts On 21st April, 2007, the marriage ceremony of the Appellants son was taking place at village Dafaut, Uttarakhand, when around 530 pm as soon as the marriage procession reached the Appellants companyrtyard he suddenly fired celebratory gunshots.
It was numbered that Appellant fired shots from his sons licensed gun causing fatal injuries to Smt.
After the companyclusion of investigation, initially a charge sheet Page 2 under Section 304, IPC was filed but later on the appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 307, IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
PW3 Page 3 Dharam Singh has also admitted that the injuries were caused by the accused with the firearm.
Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 307, IPC based on testimonies of eye witnesses and injured witnesses.
In his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the ball has struck against the gun which led to accidental fire.
The pellets struck 5 persons standing in the companyrtyard namely, Smt.
Anita W o Chanchal Singh and Khushal Singh Sonu were grievously injured who eventually succumbed to their respective injuries.
The pellets had hit Anita and his son Khushal Sonu.
The injured were taken to the hospital where two of them Anita and Khushal Singh Sonu succumbed to their injuries.
He has admitted in the cross examination that the appellant fired aiming Anita Devi and Khushal Singh.
PW5 Vimla Devi W o Devendra Singh has also companyroborated the statements of eyewitnesses PW2 Chandchal sic.
The High Court rejected the appellants plea and held as follows There is numbermerit in the submission put forth by learned Advocates appearing for the appellant.
Similarly, Khushal Singh Sonu received firearms injuries.
He stated that the firing was accidental and was caused by a ball with which some children were playing.
The ball struck against the gun in his hand and led to the firing of shots.
Appellant was seen shooting by PW2 Chanchal Singh, PW4 Tejpal Singh, PW5 Smt.
According to her also, the appellant has fired and she suffered the pellet injuries and was taken to the hospital.
PW2 Chanchal Singh has categorically deposed that the appellant has aimed at his wife Smt.
Later at about 840 pm, Dharam Singh P.W.3 filed an FIR at PS Kothwali, Bageshwar, narrating in full detail the incident of which he himself was a witness.
The bullet struck Anita Devi on her chest.
Anita as well as Khushal Singh were present there in order to participate in the marriage celebrations which suggests that neither they number their families had any animosity with the appellant.
Anita and fired the gunshot and the bullet struck her chest.
Other persons also suffered the pellet injuries by firearm.
Vimla Devi W o Devendra Singh, PW6 Ummed Singh and PW7 Vimla Devi W o Bhupal Singh.
Khushal Singh Sonu also received firearm injuries.
He was companysequently sentenced in the manner as briefly numbericed in the opening paragraph of the order.
His primary companytention was that he had numberintention to cause anyones death.
Anita W o Chanchal Singh, Khushal Singh Sonu, Ummed Singh P.W.6 , Smt.
She was taken to the hospital and declared dead.
Both Anita and Khushal Singh admittedly died of those injuries.
The bullet hit on her chest.
Vimla W o Devendra Singh P.W.5 and Smt.
He has also denied that it was a case of accidental fire.
He has also denied that it was a case of accidental fire.
He has also denied the suggestion that it was an accidental fire.
The High Court has further held that Appellant was standing on the roof.
Similarly, Dharm Singh P.W.3 companyplainant, too had numberaxe to grind against the appellant.
Analysis We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
He was taken to the hospital for treatment.
He aimed at Anita Devi.
Anita and Khushal Singh and injuring three others.
The injured were taken to the hospital.
Singh and PW4 Tejpal Singh.
Leave granted.
The Ld.
Vimla W o Bhupal Singh W.7 .
He also received the injuries.
PW4 Tejpal Singh is another eyewitness.
PW6 Ummed Singh is another eyewitness.
She was also taken to the hospital.
Anita and fired.
The appellant went in appeal before the High Court.
To determine this question the facts may be briefly numbered.
According to him the appellant fired.
According to him also, the appellant was seen holding a gun.
