The matter was carried in appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Thereafter three or four drivers joined the deceased and his companypanion.
The accused appellant fired again and the bullet hit the deceased and he companylapsed.
He opened lid of the engine.
On 14.6.1989 there was an altercation followed by scuffle between the accused appellant and one Devender Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was placed.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi found him guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.300/ , and for two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/ respectively for the aforesaid offences.
Similarly, instead of Section 307 it was held that Section 308 IPC was appropriate.
The deceased did number take the companyrect route and tried to proceed in a wrong direction.
In this process the pistol went off.
Accused claimed trial.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows Appellant was attached to Mangat Ram, a Municipal Councillor and Chairman, Works Committee of the municipality as a Personal Security Officer.
The deceased and Vijay Kumar were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital.
The deceased ignored the objection which led to further altercations.
The bullet missed the target, and instead hit the thigh of one Vijay Kumar PW 7 who was standing nearby.
Sentences of 10 years and 2 years respectively were awarded.
This was objected to by the accused appellant who asked him to take away the vehicle.
On the date of occurrence, deceased had parked his three wheeler scooter opposite the gate of Mangat Rams office.
The deceased was declared to be dead, but doctor examined Vijay Kumar PW 7 and he was admitted to the hospital.
Accused appellant asked him to stop and again a scuffle took place.
Thereupon, the deceased retorted that he would see as to what the accused appellant companyld do.
His defence was that besides the deceased there was another person and when he asked them to remove the vehicle for security reasons, the deceased and his companypanion picked up quarrel with the accused appellant and dragged him about 20 feet.
He told the incident to Mangat Ram PW 3 .
During the companyrse of scuffle, accused appellant took out his pistol and fired at the deceased.
Accused appellant threatened the deceased that he would take the vehicle to the police station.
On hearing this accused appellant boarded the scooter, and asked the deceased to take the scooter to the police station at Adarsh Nagar.
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the case was number one companyered by Section 302 IPC, but Section 304 Part I IPC was attracted.
They assaulted him and his shirt was torn.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC .
