JUDGMENT
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur where by the accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 307, IPC.
2. The case against the accused is that he on or about on 7-5-1975 at 2.30 p.m. in the village Somli fired a gun on Chotey Lal with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act he had caused the death to him, he would have been guilty of murder. To this charge of the offence under Section 307, IPC, the accused claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, Chhotey Lal (PW 1), Betal Singh (PW 2), Badan Singh (PW 3), Prem Singh (PW 4), Ram Charan (PW 5) and Surajbhan (PW 6). The accused in his statement has denied the prosecution allegation. According to him, he has been falsely implicated by the police, and he has examined two witnesses in defence. Sugar Singh alias Sugra, himself, examined DW 1 and Dharamjeet as DW 2.
4. According to the prosecution, Chhote Lal (PW 1), Betal Singh (PW 2), Badan Singh (PW 3) and one Bhawani Singh were sitting in a Khaliyan and were smoking Chilam when the accused came with a double barrel gun along with the cartridges. The accused told them that he would set the fire in the Khaliyan, to which Chhotey Lal (PW 1) requested not to do where upon, the accused fired two shots at Chhote Lal (PW 1) which passed over his head because the latter bowed down. Thereafter accused began to reload his gun on this, all the witnesses Bhawani Singh succeeded in apprehending him. Thereafter the accused along with his gun and catridges were produced before the police. The FIR lodged in this behalf is Ex. P 1. According to the witnesses, no one received injury from the gun shots fired by the accused.
5. The trial court has pointed out that there is a serious discrepancy about the distance from which, the gun was fired, as Chhotey Lal (PW 1) stated that it was fired at a distance of 25 steps but Betal Singh (PW 2) stated that it was only 6 steps and Badan Singh (PW 3) stated that it was 10-15 steps
6. The trial court also observed that the cartridges were of pellet pattern and, therefore, the spread of pellet would be of 30″ in diameter. If that is so, when all the prosecution witnesses, Betal Singh, Badan Singh and Chhotey Lal and Bhawani Singh were sitting in circle position near to each other, the pellets must strike all or any one of them, atleast.
7. From the above, the trial court found the story of the prosecution very doubtful. The additional reason given was about the dress of the accused as the description differed because Betal Singh (PW 2) stated that the accused was wearing pant but Chhotely Lal (PW 1) stated that he was having ‘tehmat’.
8. Shri Mathur has correctly pointed that the description of the dress need not be over emphasised in such cases. But there are other important points shown by the learned Counsel who has appeared as Amicus curiae which strengthened the judgment of the trial court. One of the points rightly pointed out was that the FIR reached the Magistrate court on May 10, 1975 where as the occurrence was of May 7, 1975 and this abnormal delay has not been explained by the prosecution.
9. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae, at length, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, no interference can be made in the order of the acquittal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is here by dismissed.