Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001
DATE OF DECISION: 28.2.2011
***
Dilbagh Singh
..APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Punjab.
..RESPONDENT
with Criminal Appeal No. 1423-SB of 2001
Anup Singh & Ors.
..APPELLANTS
VS.
State of Punjab
..RESPONDENT
with Crl. Appeal No. 1445-SB of 2001
Dilbagh Singh
..APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Punjab.
..RESPONDENT
and Crl. Appeal No. 1444-SB of 2001
Jaspal Singh
..APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Punjab.
..RESPONDENT
Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate
for appellants Anup Singh etc.
Mr. APS Randhawa, Advocate and
Mr. BPS Dhillon, Advocate
for the appellant Dilbagh Singh and
Jaspal Singh.
Mr. DS Brar, DAG Punjab.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The aforesaid appeals are being preferred against the judgments rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar in case FIR No. 161 dated 24.12.1996, pertaining to police station Ajnala and cross version recorded therein. We proposes to dispose of all the appeals by way of this common judgment.
The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.1996 Inspector Shalender Singh was present at Adda Chowk, Ajnala where Anup Singh son of Balbir Singh, Jatt, resident of Kot Sidhu met them and got recorded his statement to the effect that he is serving in Army and has come to the village on leave. About three months back his father Balbir Singh had taken 6/7 acres of land belonging to Panchayat on lease and one has to cross through Panchayat land for approaching the land taken by them. On that day at about 9/ 9:30 a.m. three trucks had come to loading the sand from their fields. Sukha Singh and Raja Singh sons of Swaran Singh, Jat, resident of village Bhindian Saidan and Baldev Singh son of Dara Singh, Jat, resident of Kot Sidhu detained the said trucks and asked the labourer that they will not allow them to pass that way for taking the sand. When labourers narrated this fact to him, he immediately rushed to the Sarpanch Joginder Singh who gave in writing about the lease of the land. Thereafter, he along with his uncle Kashmir Singh son of Tarlok Singh, Kala Singh son of Baldev Singh, Bala son of Kashmir Singh, Chanchal Singh, Jaimal Singh and Fateh Singh sons of Gurmej Singh, all residents of village Kot Sidhu went to the bank of Sakki Nala where the truck and labourers were standing. Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Swaran Singh, Jat, resident of Bhindi Saidan, Baldev Singh Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 3 son of Dara Singh, Jat, resident of village Kot Sidhu were also standing there. He showed them the lease deed, upon which Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha assured that they will not caused obstruction in going in and out of the trucks, but Baldev Singh son of Dara Singh hurled abuses to them. The complainant asked the labourers not to load the sand. When they were leaving that place and were crossing the Saki Nala at about 11: a.m. then Billoo son of Baldev Singh, Bawa Singh son of Shangara Singh and Ajit Singh son of Bahal Singh, Jat, resident of Khushipur along with unidentified persons armed with dangs came from the side of village Bhaini Saidan and exhorted to teach them a lesson for picking a quarrel with Baldev Singh over the pathway. On hearing this, the complainant and others, out of fear, ran towards village. After crossing Sakki Nala they entered into the fields of Bhajan Singh son of Hazara Singh. In the meantime Dilbagh Singh son of Baldev Singh armed with 12 bore DBBL gun, Baldev Singh son of Dara Singh, Jat armed with gandasi, r/o Koth Sidhu, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Swaran Singh armed with Takua, Raja son of Swaran Singh armed with Gandasi, Baj Singh son of Swaran Singh armed with dang, resident of Bhindi Saidan, Sukhraj Singh son of Surjit Singh carrying Kirpan, Jasbir Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Khushipur carrying gandasi, Swaran Singh son of Dara Singh, r/o Bhindi Saidan holding Barchhi came towards them while exhorting to teach a lesson to them for passing through that passage and for abusing to Baldev Singh. On this Dilbagh Singh fired a shot from his 12 bore DBBL gun which hit on the testicles of Kashmir Singh, as a result of which he fell down. Dilbagh Singh fired another shot, the pellets of which hit Jaimal Singh son of Gurmej Singh on his right leg and Chanchal Singh above his testicles in the left side and both of them fell down. Dilbagh Singh again tried to re-load the gun, but they snatched it from Dilbagh and kept the same in the house. The complainant also stated that the persons of their side also inflicted injuries in their self-defence to Swaran Singh son of Dara Singh and Dilbagh Singh son of Baldev Singh. Thereafter, all the assailants ran away from the spot. They, after arranging a vehicle brought Kashmir Singh, Jaimal Singh and Chanchal Singh to Civil Hospital, Ajnala, but Kashmir Singh died on the way. According to the complainant a civil suit is going on between them and Jasbir Singh and a quarrel had taken place between them Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 4 and Baldev Singh in the year 1983 wherein Dilbagh Singh received injuries, for which his uncle Joginder Singh was convicted and sentenced.
On the basis of the aforesaid statement (Ex.PD), case FIR No. 161 dated 24.12.1996 under Sections 302, 307, 341, 506 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered.
However, on 25.12.1996 an intimation regarding admission of injured Dilbagh was received and consequent thereto the police visited the hospital and also recorded his statement wherein injured Dilbagh Singh alleged that he has his residence in the fields on the bank of Sakki Nalla and the accused party is residing in village Kot Sidhu. Anup Singh accused has taken some land on lease belonging to Gram Panchayat which is situated across the Sakki Nalla and he sells sand out of the land taken by him on lease. There is no passage to the said land of Gram Panchayat from the side of village Bhindian Saidan. Therefore, the truck loaded with sand used to pass through the land of Swaran Singh son of Dara Singh, uncle of the complainant. He further stated that on 23.12.1996 Swaran Singh asked Anup Singh etc. not to pass the trucks of sand through his land as his wheat crop was damaged due to passing of the trucks and Swaran Singh also told the accused party that henceforth no such truck would be allowed to pass through that passage. There was exchange of hot words between Swaran Singh and Anup Singh when Swaran Singh stopped the trucks which came to take sand. On 24.12.1996 Swaran Singh, uncle of the complainant came to the farm house. Sukhraj Singh son of Surjit Singh his neighbourer had also came to him in order to bring tractor trolley. When Sukhraj Singh and Swaran Singh were returning from the Dera of the complainant and were a little short of Sakki Nala then Anup Singh armed with gandasi, Partap Singh @ Tabba armed with a Takua, Jaimal Singh, Chanchal Singh, Joginder Singh and Kashmir Singh having gandasis, Kala armed with a Takua, Baggu, Samittar Singh @ Kalu armed with gandasis while Mukhtiar Singh and Rattan Singh empty handed, waylaid them. Rattan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh raised lalkaras that Swaran Singh should be taught a lesson for stopping trucks loaded with sand. Then Joginder Singh, Bhajan Singh, Kashmir Singh and Kala inflicted injuries on the person of Swaran Singh with their respective weapons and Baggu inflicted injuries on the person of Sukhraj Singh with his weapon. On hearing the noise, he (Dilbagh Singh) Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 5 came out of the house with licensed gun of his brother Jaspal Singh and fired some shots to save Swaran Singh from the clutches of the accused. Some shots hit Kashmir Singh. He also fell on the sand, upon which Anup Singh, Partap Singh, Jaimal Singh and Chanchal Singh inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. Anup Singh gave two gandasi blows on the right side of head of the complainant and also gave one gandasi blow on the left side of head of complainant. Partap Singh gave a Takua blow on his mouth, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left and right side of the lips and two upper and two lower teeth were uprooted. Jaimal Singh accused gave three blows with his gandasi hitting on the right side of the head. Chanchal Singh accused gave two gandasi blows on the left side and middle of head of the complainant. Chanchal Singh gave two more gandasi blows from the reverse side hitting on the left shoulder and left hand. Thereafter, they were shifted to the hospital for treatment.
On the basis of this statement, counter version was registered against the other side under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC in the aforesaid FIR and investigated upon. Autopsy on the dead body of Kashmir Singh was got done. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and taken into police possession.
Anup Singh complainant of the main FIR handed over the DBBL gun which they snatched from Dilbagh Singh and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo.
On 27.12.1996 Baldev Singh got recovered the gandasi used in the offence, pursuant to his disclosure statement while a Takua was recovered from Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha.
Likewise, accused Anup Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Partap Singh, Joginder Singh, Jaimal Singh were arrested on 18.2.1997 and a Takua was taken into police possession from Partap Singh. On 20.2.1997 Rattan Singh and Chanchal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Samittar Singh and Kala Singh were arrested. A Takua from Kala Singh, gandasi each from Harbhajan Singh and Samitter Singh were recovered and taken into police possession.
On completion of investigations, in the main FIR challan against eleven persons namely Dilbagh Singh, Baldev Singh, Swaran Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Raj Singh, Baj Singh, Bawa Singh, Ajit Singh, Sukhraj Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Jasbir Singh was filed while in the counter Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 6 version final report was submitted against Anup Singh, Bhajan Singh, Samittar Singh, Joginder Singh, Partap Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Chanchal Singh, Jaimal Singh, Kala Singh, Mangal Singh and Rattan Singh.
On appearance Dilbagh Singh etc. were charge sheeted under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC while in the cross-version accused Anup Singh was charge sheeted under Sections 307, 326 and 324, 323, 149 IPC; Joginder Singh under Sections 307, 324 and 326, 323, 149 IPC; Partap Singh under Section 326, 324 and 307, 323 and 149 IPC, Jaimal Singh under Section 324, 307, 326, 323, 149 IPC; under Sections 324, 323, 307, 326, 149 IPC against Chanchal Singh accused; under Section 325, 307, 326, 323, 149 IPC against Bhajan Singh; under Section 324, 307, 326, 323, 149 IPC against Kala Singh, under Sections 326, 324, 326, 324, 323, 149 IPC against Mangal Singh and under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 149 IPC against Samittar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Rattan Singh.
It is apt to mention here that Rattan Singh died during the trial and proceedings against him were dropped.
To prove the charges against Dilbagh Singh etc., the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Inderbir Singh who radilogically examined Jaimal Singh. PW2 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kashmir Singh. In his opinion the cause of death was injury on abdomen resulted from a fire-arm injury and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW3 Dr. Rattanjit Singh medicolegally examined Jaimal Singh and found four lacerated wound (simple injuries) caused by fire-arm while during medical examination of Chanchal Singh he found four injuries caused by fire-arm. His injury on abdomen was declared as dangerous to life while the remaining three were simple in nature. This witness also examined Dilbagh Singh son of Baldev Singh injured. PW4 Dr. Dinesh Verma gave his opinion on police application regarding unfitness of injured Chanchal Singh. PW5 Dr. Shabegh Singh conducted operation of Chanchal Singh. PW6 Anup Singh complainant deposed on the lines of the case of prosecution. PW7 Chanchal Singh injured corroborated the testimony of the complainant. PW8 Inspector Shalendra Singh partly investigated the case. PW9 Sukhwinder Singh, Clerk produced the record pertaining to arms license in the name of Jaspal Singh for double barrel gun.PW10 Inspector Lakha Singh also took over the investigation of the Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 7 case from 27.12.1996 onwards. The learned Public Prosecutor after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner, closed the prosecution evidence.
In the cross version against Anup Singh etc. the prosecution examined Dr. Dinesh Verma as PW1 who declared injured Swaran Singh unfit to make statement; PW2 Dr. Varinder Kumar Rampal conducted the x- ray examination of Swaran Singh and opined fracture of nasal bone along with fracture of radius and ulna. This witness, during x-ray examination of Dilbagh Singh also found fracture of right parietal bone while fracture of 5th metacarpal bone was noticed during examination of Sukhraj Singh. PW3 Dr. Rattanjit Singh medically examined Dilbagh Singh and found as many as 13 injuries on his person, out of which one was declared grievous. He also opined that collectively the injuries could be dangerous to life. This witness also examined Sukhraj Singh and found two injuries with sharp edged weapon, out of which one was declared grievous and other one as simple. During the examination of Swaran Singh he found eight injuries, out of which two were found grievous in nature and rest were simple. PW4 Dr. Subegh Singh gave opinion about the fitness of Sukhraj Singh and Swaran Singh and further stitched the injuries of Dilbagh Singh. PW5 Dilbagh Singh is the complainant while PW6 and PW7 are injured Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh respectively. PW8 Inspector Shalendra Singh partly investigated the case while later the investigations were taken over by PW9 Inspector Lakha Singh, who arrested the accused.
In their statements Dilbagh Singh, Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh took since Swaran Singh was not allowing the trucks of the complainant party to cross from his land, Anup Singh, Jaimal Singh, Chanchal Singh, Kashmir Singh, Bhajan Singh, Babbu having gandasi each, Kala and partap Singh with Takua along with Avtar Singh, Rattan Singh etc. attacked Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh and inflicted injuries to them. On hearing their noise for help, Dilbagh Singh fired the shots to save the lives of Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh. Remaining accused pleaded their false implication in the case.
In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Anup Singh etc. also pleaded their false implication in the cross version.
Dilbagh Singh etc. did not lead any evidence in defence while Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 8 Anup Singh etc. filed supplementary statement and also got examined Dr. Gurmanjit Rai who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kashmir Singh as DW1 and also examined Dr. Shabeg Singh as DW2.
On conclusion of trial and on appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court concluded that it was a case of free fight; it was Dilbagh Singh who committed the murder of Kashmir Singh while inflicted injuries dangerous to life to Jaimal Singh and Chanchal Singh; the presence of remaining accused, except Sukhraj and Swaran Singh was doubted, but since no overt act was attributed to Sukhraj Singh and Swaran Singh, they were also acquitted of the charges. For committing an offence under Section 302 IPC appellant Dilbagh Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for two months was provided and for causing fire arm injuries to Jaimal Singh and Chanchal Singh rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 IPC separately with a fine of Rs.1000/- each was awarded and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month was imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
It is apt to mention here that appellant Dilbagh Singh was also charge-sheeted under Section 25 of Arms Act in which he was held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of whereof further rigorous imprisonment for one month was awarded.
Jaspal Singh, brother of Dilbagh Singh was charge-sheeted under Section 29 of Arms Act for not keeping his licensed gun safely. After the trial he was also found guilty under the aforesaid head and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of whereof further rigorous imprisonment for one month was awarded.
In cross version accused Samitter Singh @ Kala, Mukhtiar Singh and Kala Singh were acquitted. However, the remaining were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Anup Singh was held guilty Under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Dilbagh Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 9
Partap Singh was held guilty Under Sections 326 and 324 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Dilbagh Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months while under second head rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded.
Jaimal Singh was held guilty Under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Dilbagh Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.300/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Chanchal Singh was held guilty Under Sections 324 and 323 IPC for causing injuries to Dilbagh Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.300/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month while under second head rigorous imprisonment for six months was awarded.
Joginder Singh was held guilty Under Sections 326 and 324 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Swaran and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months while under second head rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded.
Mangal Singh was held guilty Under Sections 326 and 324 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Sukhraj Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months while under second head rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded.
Bhajan Singh was held guilty Under Section 325 IPC for causing injuries to Swaran Singh and awarded Rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.400/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Dis-satisfied with the same, appellant Dilbagh Singh has preferred Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 and Crl. Appeal No. 1445-SB of 2001 while his brother Jaspal Singh has preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1444-SB of 2001. Aggrieved with their conviction and sentence Anup Singh etc. have preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1423-SB of 2001.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 10 learned State counsel and with the assistance rendered by them, have carefully gone through the records of the case.
So far as plea of self-defence is concerned, the same carries no weight in it. Merely because some of the accused had injuries on their their person does not confer a right of private defence exercised to the extent of causing death, as in this case. Though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused were under such grave apprehension about their safety that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary. The circumstances of the case nowhere suggest that it was necessary for the appellant Dilbagh Singh to open fire. It is well settled that to claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused. However, in the instant case, no evidence much less, cogent and credible has been adduced in this regard. The shots were fired towards lower vital part of the body. Had he really been intended to save Sukhraj Singh and Swaran Singh, as pronounded by Dilbagh Singh, he could have shot the fire towards the lower portion or legs or in the air. Not only that he repeated the fire shots, the pellets of which hit on Chanchal Singh and Jaimal Singh. Hence the plea of self-defence is not available to the accused Dilbagh Singh in the facts and circumstances of the case.
So far as the occurrence is concerned, that has been admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of taking away the trucks of the sand from near the land of Swaran Singh. The version recorded in the FIR speaks of that Swaran Singh etc. were not allowing taking of tractor trolley from the passage adjoining the drain while in the cross-version Dilbagh Singh alleged that Anup Singh etc. were taking the sand from their land. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant Dilbagh Singh that the occurrence taken place in his fields and hence, it can easily be said that Anup Singh etc. were the aggressor and Dilbagh Singh fired the shots in order to Swaran Singh and Sukhraj Singh. There is no merits in it. In the site plan Ex.PR the place of occurrence has been shown to be in the fields of Bhajan Singh whereas in the site plan Ex.DE prepared in the cross-version, the place of receiving injuries by Swaran Singh has been shown to be on the "Wat" of land of Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 11 Bhajan Singh and Dilbagh Singh accused. The injuries to Sukhraj Singh has been shown to be inflicted in the fields of Dilbagh Singh. It is not disputed that land of Bhajan Singh belonging to the complainant in the FIR and that of accused Dilbagh Singh adjoins each other. The Behk of Dilbagh Singh and Baldev Singh accused are also shown to be in the fields of Dilbagh Singh. The blood stained earth was also proved to be lifted from the fields of Bhajan Singh. Thus, the plea that the occurrence had taken place in the fields of Dilbagh Singh is not sustainable. That apart, the evidence on record is suggestive of the fact that it was a free fight amongst the parties and the same has rightly been held by the learned trial Court.
The consistent and proved case of the prosecution is that appellant Dilbagh Singh fired a shot from the double licensed gun upon Kashmir Singh, due to which he died while other shots fired by him were with the intention to kill Chanchal Singh and Jaimal Singh, who also sustained injuries dangerous to life. The testimonies of PW6 Anup Singh complainant and PW9 Sukhwinder Singh are consistent and corroborated on material particulars. However, it is a matter of record that in a sudden quarrel the appellant fired the shot, resulting into unfortunate death of Kashmir Singh. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it can safely be held that the intention of the appellant was not to cause the death, but he is guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention was to cause such an injury which was likely to cause the death. Hence, the act of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304-I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
Coming to the case of appellants in cross-version i.e. Anup Singh etc. it is the case of the prosecution that when Dilbagh Singh fired upon Kashmir Singh, Anup Singh etc. snatched the gun from Dilbagh Singh and further caused injuries to him. To prove its case the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of complainant Dilbagh Singh as PW5, injured/ eye witnesses PW6 Swaran Singh and PW7 Sukhraj Singh. In their statements they have given the complete narration in which the accused persons assaulted them. Their testimonies are corroborated to each other material particulars, so far as involvement of appellants Anup Singh, Bhajan Singh, Joginder singh, Chanchal Singh, Jaimal Singh, Partap Singh and Mangal Singh in the commission of offence is concerned. They were subjected to Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 12 lengthy cross examination, but nothing adverse to the case of prosecution has come out. Some minor contradictions, so referred in their statements, do not carry any significance as it cannot be expected from a witness to give photographic version of the events which had taken place about one and a half year prior to their deposition in the Court. The ocular version stands corroborated with the medical evidence led by the prosecution. As noticed above, it has been held that it was a case of free fight wherein both the parties inflicted injuries to each other and hence each accused is liable to be punished for his own individual act and not for the act of others. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held them individually under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 IPC, in accordance with the injury attributed to each of them.
Appellant Dilbagh Singh has not disputed the use of fire-arm i.e. licensed double barrel gun belonging to his brother appellant Jaspal Singh in the commission of offence. It has been proved that the same was not used by him in order to save the lives of Sukhraj Singh and Swaran Singh, as claimed by him and hence he was rightly held guilty under Section 25 of Arms Act and there is no room to interfere with the same. Hence Crl.
Appeal No. 1445-SB of 2001 is dismissed.
Now we come to the question of sentence to be imposed upon the appellants. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the matter pertains to the year 1996 and the appellants are facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about 14 years and hence, a lenient view is sought.
The conviction of the appellant Dilbagh Singh under Section 302 IPC has been altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC. Hence, he is awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years, besides he shall pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs to the legal representatives of the deceased. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years. Likewise, his conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 308 IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
So far as appellants Anup Singh etc. are concerned, their sentence can be reduced, keeping in view their antecedents. Accordingly, Crl. Appeal No. 715-DB of 2001 13 sentence awarded to the appellants Anup Singh, Partap Singh, Joginder Singh and Mangal Singh under Section 326 IPC is reduced to the period of one year and shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to them under other head with the same amount of fine, as imposed by the learned trial Court. Appellants Jaimal Singh has been convicted under Section 324 IPC; appellant Chanchal Singh under Sections 324 and 323 IPC while appellant Bhajan Singh has been held guilty under Section 325 IPC. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that during all these years, they have acted in a manner prejudicial to the society. Hence, their sentence awarded under the aforesaid heads is modified and they are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, within one month undertaking that during the probation period they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour; shall not commit any offence and in case of any violation on their part, to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so.
So far as appellant Jaspal Singh is concerned, his licensed gun was undisputedly used in the commission of offence. He was somewhat negligent in keeping the same in safe custody but it has come on record that he is employed in Police Department and there is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that he was present at the time of occurrence. Therefore, considering his antecedents, without interfering his conviction under Section 29 of Arms Act, instead of custodial imprisonment, his sentence is modified and he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing probation bonds before the CJM concerned. It is also clarified that it may not be taken as a precedent and has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
February 28,2011
Jiten