Thereafter, the accused ran away towards the field with his gun.
A circular area about 1 cm diameter on Anterior surface of left shoulder.
The injury No.2 was described as under A circular area about 1.5 cm diameter in left axilla towards left arm.
A circular area 1.2 cm diameter about 2.3 cm below injury No.6.
The accused undisputedly nurtured a grudge against the deceased for alleged siding with the PW 5 Gian Chand, with whom the accused had civil dispute, challenged the deceased, the gun was aimed at and fired at him.
P 11 was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found to be in working companydition and having been fired.
The High Court upset the companyviction recorded by the Trial Court, firstly that the DBML gun Ex.
The High Court has number companysidered and discussed the testimony of PW 4 at all.
An area 2 cm x 1 cm about 2 cm away from left nipple medio supiriorly.
The inspection was carried out by the Trial Court on 25.2.1996 in the presence of the accused, his companynsel and the Public Prosecutor.
It is further stated that at about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, when the deceased Uttam Chand along with his brother Hans Raj PW 1 and Vijay Kumar PW 3 was proceeding towards the fields to get fodder for the cattle and was passing through the passage in front of the house of the accused Mast Ram, the accused with DBML Double Barrel Muzzle Loaded gun in his hand challenged Uttam Chand stating that he would be done to death and then fired at Uttam Chand.
SEMA,J The sole respondent accused was companyvicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II , Kangra at Dharmshala for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
A circular area of 1.3 cm diameter on medial wall of left axilla which is formed by chest wall.
Thereupon, the accused Mast Ram became furious and threatened the deceased Uttam Cand that he would deal with him first of all as he was siding with Gian Chand with whom the accused had the civil dispute over the abadi.
An area circular about 1.2 cm diameter about 3 cm below injury No.3.
A circular area of about 1.4 cm diameter in left Infra clavicular region 7 cm below mid clavicular point.
An area of 4.1 cm x 2.3 cm above left companytal margin about 5 cm away from Xiphi Sternum.
P 11 alleged to have been used in the companymission of offence was number used in a test fire at the time of local inspection companyducted by the Trial Court and instead a test fire was carried out with the help of SBML Single Barrel Muzzle Loaded gun belonging to PW 1 Hans Raj.
An area of 3.2 cm x 2.3 cm on sternum about 5 cm below sternal numberch.
In the meantime, PW 4 Tarsem Lal also arrived and PWs 1, 3, and 4 together shifted the deceased Uttam Chand to his nearby house where he breathed his last after sometime.
The last and the most perverse and fallacious finding of the High Court is with regard to discarding the evidence of eye witnesses account of PW 1 Hans Raj and PW 3 Vijay Kumar.
The accused pleaded ignorance in his statement under Section 313 but he did number lead any defence evidence.
The accused and PW 5 Gian Chand were at loggerheads over the dispute of abadi and civil litigation between them was pending.
The accused was arrested on 18.8.1995 by PW 15 and pursuant to a disclosure statement, the DBML gun Ex.
It appears that the defence of the accused in his examination under Section 313 was that from the place where the accused is alleged to have fired at the deceased and the place where the deceased was standing and hit by the gun shot was number within the firing range.
The deceased Uttam Chand was employed as a carpenter at Delhi and had companye to village on 5.8.1995 to attend the performance of first death anniversary of his mother.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the sentence and companyviction recorded by the Trial Court was set aside.
The fourth reason assigned by the High Court in discarding the prosecution story is with regard to the number explanation of injury No.2 on the body of the deceased.
The spot inspection, was, however carried out at the request of the accused in his examination under Section 313.
A circular area of 1 cm diameter on right side of sternum.
The testimony of PWs 1, 3 and 4 was companysistent with the report of ballistic expert and the evidence of PW 2 Dr.Sanjay Kumar Mahajan who companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries A circular area about 1 cm diameter on Antero lateral surface of left arm about 9 inches from Acromion.
This has led to the Trial Court for spot inspection.
It is the categorical statement of PW 1 Hans Raj and PW 3 Vijay Kumar that while they were accompanying the deceased, the accused had challenged the deceased and thereafter fired at him.
P 11 was recovered from underneath the bushes near his house.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The accused and the prosecution witnesses are all from the same village Sug Tarkhana, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra.
The matter was reported to the Pradhan of the village, who advised to lodge a report with the police and the First Information Report was, accordingly, lodged.
The Trial Court after companysidering the evidence and eye witnesses accounts of PWs 1, 3, 4, and PW 2 Dr.Sanjay Kumar Mahajan, who companyducted the post mortem examination and the report of forensic laboratory has recorded findings that the prosecution has established his case beyond all reasonable doubts and companyvicted the respondent as aforesaid.
A circular area about 1.5 cm diameter in left Axilla toward left arm.
The Trial Court companyducted a test gun shot fire from the place where the accused was alleged to have fired at the deceased and it was observed that the place where the deceased was standing and hit by the gun shot was within the firing range.
It is stated that on 14.8.1995 at about 10.00 A.M. Gian Chand PW 5 had an altercation and quarrel with the accused Mast Ram with regard to the dispute over the abadi and the deceased Uttam Chand said to have intervened and advised both Gian Chand and Mast Ram number to quarrel and wait for the decision of the companyrt in civil litigation.
Hence, this appeal by the State.
The deceased Uttam Chand received injuries on his arm, chest and shoulder, fell down on the ground, and became unconscious.
