1983 (6) TMI 210 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Bankey Lal was killed by Pussu or Jia Lal.
2. Whether Chhatrapal suffered injuries due to shots fired by Pussu or Jia Lal.
3. Whether Gaya Prasad was assaulted by Pussu.
4. Whether Pussu committed any offence under the Arms Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Bankey Lal was killed by Pussu or Jia Lal:
The prosecution alleged that Pussu, armed with a licensed gun, fired at Bankey Lal, causing his death. The defense claimed that Jia Lal, Pussu's father, fired in self-defense, killing Bankey Lal. The trial court found Pussu guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court acquitted him. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's evidence, including the prompt First Information Report (FIR) and witness testimonies, was credible. The court noted that there was no mention of Jia Lal's presence in the FIR, contradicting the defense's claim. The Supreme Court concluded that Pussu was the aggressor and had the intention to kill Bankey Lal, thus affirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

2. Whether Chhatrapal suffered injuries due to shots fired by Pussu or Jia Lal:
The prosecution contended that Chhatrapal was injured by shots fired by Pussu. Witnesses, including Chhatrapal himself, testified that Pussu fired at him. The defense argued that Jia Lal fired in self-defense. The trial court accepted the prosecution's version, but the High Court found inconsistencies. The Supreme Court, however, found the prosecution's evidence credible, noting that Chhatrapal had no ill-will against Pussu's family and had no reason to falsely implicate Pussu. The court rejected the defense's claim and upheld Pussu's conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Chhatrapal.

3. Whether Gaya Prasad was assaulted by Pussu:
The prosecution asserted that Pussu assaulted Gaya Prasad with the butt of the gun. Gaya Prasad's testimony supported this claim. The trial court found Pussu guilty under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to Gaya Prasad. The High Court questioned the absence of this detail in the initial FIR. The Supreme Court deemed the omission trivial and not affecting the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court upheld Pussu's conviction under Section 323 IPC.

4. Whether Pussu committed any offence under the Arms Act:
The prosecution charged Pussu under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for illegal possession and use of a licensed gun. The trial court found Pussu guilty, but the High Court acquitted him. The Supreme Court noted that the gun used in the crime was Jia Lal's licensed gun, which Pussu used unlawfully. The court found sufficient evidence to convict Pussu under Section 27 of the Arms Act and restored his conviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's acquittal of Pussu to be erroneous, based on flawed assumptions and conjectures. The court reinstated the trial court's conviction of Pussu for murder under Section 302 IPC, attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, causing hurt under Section 323 IPC, and offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, the Supreme Court modified the sentence of death to life imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and Pussu was directed to surrender and serve his sentence.