Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crl.A.No.385-Sb Of 2001 (O&M) vs The State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 03, 2014
Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi
.....Appellant
v.
The State of Punjab
......Respondent
2. Crl.A.No.426-SB of 2001 (O&M)
Darshan Singh
.....Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Paras Talwar, Advocate
for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.385-SB-2001.
Mr.Ajay Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.426-SB-2001.
Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
.....
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
By way of this common judgment, CRA Nos.385-SB-2001 (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi V the State of Punjab) and 426-SB-2001 (Darshan Singh V State of Punjab) are being decided since both the appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby appellants Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Darshan Singh were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 459 read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and were awarded the following sentences:
Sharma Seema2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [2]
Appellant- Gurpreet Singh Offence Sentence (R.I.) Fine In Default (RI) 307, IPC 7 years ` 1000/- 3 months 459, IPC 7 years ` 1000/- 3 months 27, Arms Act 3 years ` 500/- 3 months Appellant -Darshan Singh Offence Sentence (R.I.) Fine In Default (RI) 307/34, IPC 5 years ` 1000/- 3 months 459/34, IPC 7 years ` 1000/- 3 months 27, Arms Act 3 years ` 500/- 3 months
3. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Brief facts of the case are that PW-3 Karamjit Singh (complainant) while admitted in the Civil Hospital at Moga, got recorded his statement (Ex.PC) to ASI Nirmal Singh (PW7) alleging that on the intervening night of 30th and 31st May, 1995, at about 1.00 a.m., he was sleeping on the roof of his house with his mother Satnam Kaur (PW4), brother Tarlok Singh and sister Kanwaljit Kaur.
In the meantime, the appellants came there and declared that the complainant would be taught a lesson for the dispute which he had with appellant Darshan Singh. Complainant was embraced by appellant Darshan Singh and in the meantime, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi fired a shot, which hit on the right side of chest, above the nipple of complainant. On hearing the noise, Satnam Kaur (PW4) the mother of the complainant, as well as his brother and sister woke up. Satnam Kaur (PW4) by means of torch light saw the appellants and raised alarm. The complainant saw that the person, who grappled with him was Darshan Singh (appellant) while the Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [3] other person Gurpreet Singh (appellant), aged about 20-22 years old, wearing kurta pyajama, could be identified by him if he was brought before him. On hearing the noise being made by the complainant side, both the appellants with their respective weapons took to their heels from the place of occurrence. Out of fear, the injured as well as the other inmates of the house remained confined in the house during the night hours and in the morning, injured Karamjit Singh (PW3) was carried to the Civil Hospital, Moga, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr.Mohinderpal (PW2). The motive for causing the injury to the complainant Karamjit Singh (PW3) was that Darshan Singh appellant had a dispute with him (complainant) over a street, for which the appellants had attempted to kill complainant Karamjit Singh. The statement of Karamjit Singh (Ex.P6) was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PC/2) was registered.
5. The Investigating Officer (PW7) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PJ). The blood stained earth was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PK). One empty cartridge of .12 bore was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PD). The belongings of the injured and one empty vial were also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PL). During the course of investigation, appellant Gurpreet Singh was arrested on 06.09.1995 by ASI Vakeel Singh in the presence of ASI Atma Singh (PW6). At that time, accused Gurpreet Singh was accompanied by Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Veera Singh and Baljinder Singh @ Raja (later the three were acquitted by learned trial Court). Other Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [4] accused were arrested by ASI Suraj Bhan and ASI Atma Singh. .12 bore double-barrel gun along with four cartridges was recovered. On unloading the said gun, two live cartridges of the same bore were also recovered. In addition, two live cartridges of the same bore were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of Gurpreet Singh (appellant). He could not produce any licence or permit for possession of the gun and the cartridges. The recovered gun and the cartridges were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PE). The rough site plan of the place of the recovery of the gun and the cartridges was prepared. A separate case bearing FIR No.49 dated 06.08.1995 for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was registered at Police Station Mehna, District Faridkot, against Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (appellant).
6. After completion of the investigation, the police file was handed over to the Station House Officer, Inspector Jagmohan Singh, for presentation of the charge sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Veera Singh and Baljinder Singh @ Raja while Darshan Singh (appellant) was placed in the column of innocent persons, since he was found innocent during the investigation. Copies of the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) and the documents enclosed therewith were supplied to each of the accused free of cost, as enshrined in Section 207, Cr.P.C. Since Sections 307 and 459, IPC, were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said Court for trial in accordance with law. Appellant Gurpreet Singh and his co-accused, Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Veera and Baljinder Singh were charge-sheeted for the offences Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [5] punishable under Sections 307 and 459 read with Section 34, IPC while Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was further charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. After leading some of the prosecution evidence, appellant Darshan Singh was summoned in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C., to face trial with the principal accused and, thereafter, the charges were again framed on 15.03.1999, whereby Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh appellants alongwith their co-accused Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Veera Singh and Baljinder Singh @ Raja were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 459 read with Section 149, IPC, and Gurpreet Singh appellant was further charged for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Gursewak Singh, Draftsman: He had prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PA) of the place of occurrence at the instance of Karamjit Singh (PW3).
PW-2 Dr.Mohinder Pal: He had medico-legally examined Karamjit Singh (PW3) and found as under:-
1. A lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins and of the size of 2-3/4 cms x 2 -3/4 cms placed on the front of chest, 14 cms above the right nipple and 1 cm below right clavicle. The wound had blackening and scorching present along its rim and also there was singening of hair. Fresh Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [6] bleeding was present. X-ray was advised and surgical opinion was required.
2. A lacerated punctured with inverted and irregular margins and of the size of 4 cms x 3 cms on the back of chest, 8 cms below shoulder girdle and 14 cms right of mid line. A metal piece and a bone piece had been found along the margins of this wound. X-ray was advised and surgical opinion was required.
A metal piece and a bone piece recovered from the room Karamjit Singh (PW3) were preserved in a vial. The shirt of the injured which had tears corresponding to the injuries and smeared with blood was also taken into possession. The injures were caused by means of firearm.
After receipt of X-ray report and surgical opinion, he prepared the supplementary report (Ex.PC) whereby both the injuries were declared as grievous as well as dangerous to life. Injury No.1 was entry wound while injury No.2 was the exit wound of the pallet.
PW-3 Karamjit Singh, injured-complainant: He deposed in detail with regard to the incident and fully supported the prosecution version.
PW-4 Satnam Kaur: She is the mother of Karamjit Singh (PW3). She is an eye-witness of the occurrence and fully narrated the prosecution version and identified Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh (appellants) as assailants.
Sharma Seema2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [7] PW-5 ASI Vakeel Singh: He deposed that on 06.08.1995 while he was in the company of ASI Atma Singh and ASI Suraj Pal then Gupreet Singh (appellant) along with his co-accused Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Veera, Baljinder @ Raja emerged there. Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was arrested by him and the gun along with live cartridges were recovered from him. On personal search, two more live cartridges of .12 bore were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of Gurpreet Singh. The recovered material was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PE). He also prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PF) of the place of arrest of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) and the recovery of gun and cartridges.
PW-6 ASI Atma Singh: He also toed the lines of the deposition of ASI Vakeel Singh (PW-5).
PW-7 ASI Nirmal Singh: He is the investigating Officer of the present case and he too deposed in detail about the investigation conducted by him.
PW-8 Dr.Vajinder Singh, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Moga:
He deposed that on 31.05.1995, he had conducted x-ray examination of Karamjit Singh (PW3) and found fracture of acromion process of scapula. Multiple radio opaque shadows were also seen in the said area. Surgical emphysema was seen in the soft tissues. He proved x- ray report (Ex.PM) and the x-ray film (Ex.PM/1). PW-9 Dr.Ramesh Sharma, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Moga: He deposed that on 03.06.1995, he had Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [8] given surgical opinion (Ex.PO) regarding the injury on the person of Karamjit Singh (PW3) to the effect that there was fracture of acromion process of scapula (right), head of humerus. The patient was unable to move his right upper limb.
PW-10 Head Constable Jasbir Singh: He tendered his duly sworn affidavit (Ex.PP) to be read in evidence. PW-11 Dr.Yashpal, Medical Officer: He deposed that on 31.05.1995 while he was posted at Civil Hospital, Moga, on that day on police request (Ex.PH), he gave his opinion (Ex.PH/1) whereby Karamjit Singh (PW3) was declared fit to make statement.
PW-12 Constable Satwant Singh: He deposed that on 31.05.1995 at 1.00 p.m while he was posted at Police Station, Mehna, on that day Moharrir Head Constable Raj Pal had handed over to him special report (Ex.PC/2) to hand over the same to the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Moga. He had also handed over the special reports to the SSP and DSP.
PW-13 Constable Karamjit Singh: He too tendered his duly sworn affidavit (Ex.PQ) to be read in evidence.
9. After tendering the reports of the Chemical examiner (Ex.PY) and the Ballistics expert report (Ex.PZ), closed the prosecution case.
10. The statements in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. of the appellants and their co-accused were recorded. In response to penultimate question, Gurpreet Singh (appellant) stated as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [9] case. I have no concern with the case and I have been wrongly named in this case."
11. Similarly, Darshan Singh (appellant) also alleged his false implication.
12. In defence evidence, the following witnesses were examined:-
DW-1 Sudagar Singh: He deposed that he was Ex-
sarpanch of the village Takhanwadh. On 31.05.1995 at about 1.00 a.m he heard the gun shot fire and reached at the house of Baldev Singh son of Kartar Singh where Karamjit Singh (PW3) and Satnam Kaur (PW4) were present. On his asking, Karamjit Singh (PW3) told him that an unidentified person had fired a shot at him.
Baldev Singh was present at that time. Deputy Superintendent of Police had visited their village in connection with the case in hand and he had narrated the entire version to him.
DW-2 Karnail Singh @ Kaila: He deposed that four years ago at about 1.00 a.m, he heard a noise of fire from gun. He identified Charna who had passed in front of his house. At that time, he (Charna) was accompanied by three other persons to whom he (Karnail Singh) did not know. Darshan Singh (appellant) was not amongst those persons who had passed in front of his house. On asking of the witness, the accused had not told him as to where the gun shot had been fired. The accused did not tell anything to the witness rather they threatened him to keep mum. In cross-examination, he admitted that Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [10] out of those persons, accused Gurpreet Singh was carrying a gun in his hand was present in the Court. DW-3 Baldev Singh: He deposed that the house of Neetu @ Karamjit Singh was on southern side of his house. About 04 years, 09 months back, at about 12/1'0 clock midnight, Karamjit Singh, his mother, his sister and brother came to his house as a gun shot had hit Karamjit Singh. On his (Baldev Singh) asking Karamjit Singh and his family members told that they could not identify the person who fired a shot at Karamjit Singh and thereafter, up to 6.00 a.m all of them remained at his house.
During their stay, Karamjit Singh and his family members did not disclose to him the names of the assailants. After 5/6 days of the occurrence, DSP had visited his village and recorded his statement (Ex.DB). DW-4 Manminder Singh, DSP, Jalalabad: He deposed that on 06.06.1995 while he was posted as DSP at Moga then he visited the village Takhanwadh, in connection with the verification of the investigation relating to FIR No.32, dated 31.5.1995, under Section 307/34, IPC, of Police Station, Mehna. Several persons including the members of the panchayat were joined in the inquiry. On the basis of the same, he found that Darshan Singh was falsely implicated by the complainant party. In cross- examination, this witness admitted that he did not join Karamjit Singh (injured) in the investigation. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [11] learned trial court held Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh (appellants) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 459, IPC; and Section 27 of the Arms Act and ordered them to undergo the sentences as has been discussed in the initial part of the judgment. However, accused Charanjit Singh @ Charna, Baldev Singh @ Beera and Baljinder Singh @ Raja were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
14. Mr.Paras Talwar, learned counsel for appellant, Gurpreet Singh, submits that concededly, Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was not known to Karmajit Singh (PW3) and Satnam Kaur (PW4) and as such, his name was not mentioned at the time of lodging of the First Information Report; test identification parade of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was never held; Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was not present at the spot; there was no motive with Gurpreet Singh to have gone to the house of the complainant to cause injuries to him; the prosecution has failed to establish the inter-se relations between Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh; the gun alleged to have been used for committing the crime, was not produced in the present case; and Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was the son of Sarpanch of the adjoining village and if the complainant party was not aware of the name of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) then they could disclose to the police that the son of the Sarpanch of the adjoining village was amongst the assailants; that empty cartridge which was allegedly recovered from the spot on 31.05.1995, was not sent to the Ballistics Expert for comparison with the gun which was later recovered from Gurpreet Singh (appellant) on 06.08.1995.
Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [12]
15. Mr.Ajay Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant, Darshan Singh, also submits that initially Karmajit Singh (PW3) and Satnam Kaur (PW4) had disclosed that a single-barrel gun was used in the occurrence but later a double-barrel gun was recovered from Gurpreet Singh (appellant) which falsifies the basic version of the prosecution. He further submits that after thorough investigation, the DSP had declared Darshan Singh (appellant) as innocent and during trial, no new material had emerged on record to connect Darshan Singh (appellant) for the offences, he had been charged. He also argues that if Darshan Singh (appellant) had a motive on his part to commit the murder of Karamjit Singh (PW3), in that eventuality, he (Darshan Singh appellant) would not have gone to the house of the complainant empty handed; if Darshan Singh (appellant) had grappled with Karmajit Singh (PW3) and Pritam Singh had fired thereafter, in that situation, Darshan Singh (appellant) would have also received pellet injuries.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it has fully been proved that the incident of firing had taken place on the intervening night of 30th and 31st May, 1995 at the house of Karamjit Singh (PW3) wherein he received pellet injuries at the hands of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) while Darshan Singh (appellant) embraced Karamjit Singh; the deposition of Karmajit Singh (PW3) has fully been corroborated by his mother Satnam Kaur (PW4) who was an eye-witness and the presence of both those witnesses cannot or could not be assailed by the defence. He further submitted that all the defence witnesses Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [13] produced by the appellants had admitted the occurrence; DW-2 has even admitted that while crossing in front of his house, he had seen Pritam and Gurpreet Singh carrying a gun in the midnight on the date of occurrence; the ocular version is fully supported not only from the medical evidence but also from the scientific evidence. To elaborate his submissions, he submitted that Dr.Mohinderpal (PW2) who had medico-legally examined the injured, did disclose about the entry and exist wound by means of a firearm near right clavicle of Karamjit Singh (PW-3). He had also recovered a metallic piece and a piece of bone from the wound of the injured. He also pointed out from the deposition of Dr.Mohinderpal (PW2) that there was black opaque shadow nearby the wound. He further invited the attention of the Court towards the deposition of Dr.Ramesh (PW9) who declared the injuries to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life.
17. He further submits that the ballistics expert report (Ex.PZ) received from the Forensic Science Laboratory would clinch the matter when it was found that the empty cartridge recovered from the spot on 31.05.1995 had matched with the gun recovered from Gurpreet Singh (appellant) on 06.08.1995. He further submits that at midnight when Karamjit Singh (PW3) and Satnam Kaur (PW4) were sleeping and except the moonlight and torchlight which was possessed by Smt.Satnam Kaur (PW4), there was no other source of light and as such, it was not possible in that scenario for the rustic villagers to say that it was a double-barrel or single- barrel gun which was allegedly used in the crime, therefore, the benefit of such insignificant contradiction cannot be extended to the accused; the arguments of the defence that Darshan Singh Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [14] (appellant) was found innocent by the DSP would not be sufficient to exonerate him from the serious crime since Karamjit Singh (PW3) and his mother would be the last person to falsely implicate Darshan Singh (appellant) and give free hand to the real culprits who had attempted to commit the murder of Karamjit Singh (PW3); that the DSP had appeared as DW-4 and during his cross- examination, he fairly admitted that during his investigation, he had not joined Karamjit Singh (PW3), therefore, the investigation conducted by him could not be fair; that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is adequate and as such, no interference is called for even on that aspect.
18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
19. So far as the submission with regard to the identification of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) is concerned, it was specifically mentioned in the First Information Report lodged by Karamjit Singh (PW3) that Darshan Singh (appellant) was accompanied by an unidentified person of about 23 years of age and he could be identified if produced before him. During investigation, Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was arrested and the gun used in the crime was recovered from him. At the time of prosecution evidence, not only injured Karamjit Singh (PW3) deposed that Gurpreet Singh (appellant) had fired at him but his mother, Satwant Kaur (PW4), had also deposed on oath that it was Gurpreet Singh (appellant) who was armed with a gun and fired a shot at her son, Karamjit Singh (PW3). A man may lie but not the circumstances. The gun allegedly recovered from Gurpreet Singh (appellant) and the empty Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [15] cartridge recovered from the spot matched with each other at the time of their examination by Ballistics Expert. Reference can be made to the report (Ex.PZ). These two circumstances are further corroborated from the deposition of DW-2 when he fairly admitted that after the occurrence when Gurpreet Singh was passing in front of his house, at that time he was carrying a gun, therefore, on this aspect no benefit can be extended to Gurpreet Singh (appellant).
19. The next submission that he had no motive to go to the house of the complainant and cause injuries to him is by itself not sufficient. Once the injured has deposed that it was the Gurpreet Singh (appellant) who had fired shot at him then there was no question for the Court to look for the motive. There is no gainsaying that in some cases motive plays vital role but when the injured himself deposes that he is the person who had caused injury, in that eventuality the motive pales into insignificance.
20. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Gurpreet Singh that the prosecution has not been able to prove the inter-se relation of Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh, therefore, the benefit should be extended to Gurpreet Singh, has no legs to stand. What was inter-se relationship between the appellants was known to them. The prosecution had to prove that Gurpreet Singh and Darshan Singh trespassed the house of the complainant side in the midnight and inflicted firearm injuries to Karamjit Singh (PW3), in that eventuality, to look for the motive or to probe into the inter se relationship of Darshan Singh with Gurpreet Singh would not in any way be required.
21. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the empty cartridge alleged to have been recovered Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [16] from the spot on 31.05.1995 but the same was not sent to the Ballistics expert till the gun was recovered from Gurpreet Singh, therefore, no importance can be attached to the report (Ex.PZ), is also not weighing with this Court. According to ASI Nirmal Singh (PW7) the empty cartridge recovered from the spot was sealed at the spot and taken into police possession. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also against the material available on record. The affidavit (Ex.PP) of HC Jasbir Singh (PW10) spells out that the parcels containing the empty cartridge and the blood stained earth were handed over to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 21.07.1995 while the appellant, Gurpreet Singh, was arrested on 06.08.1995 and at that time, the gun was recovered and the said gun was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 24.08.1995. The report (Ex.PZ) of the Deputy Director, Ballistics , would reveal that the seals on the packet containing the empty cartridge were found intact and the same was the opinion with regard to the packet containing the gun, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Gurpreet Singh in this regard is misconceived.
22. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Darshan Singh that he would not visit the house of the complainant side empty-handed also has no legs to stand. Once the prosecution has been able to establish not only from its evidence but it has also been proved from the defence evidence that Gurpreet Singh was carrying a gun at the time of occurrence then there was no necessity for each of the accused to carry weapons. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was controversy with regard to the use of single-barrel Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [17] and double-barrel gun in the occurrence, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State are self-explanatory. He has narrated the circumstances under which the variation with regard to double-barrel and single-barrel had occurred, therefore, no benefit on that account can be extended to the appellants.
23. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the gun which was used in the occurrence had not been produced in Court in this case would not extend any benefit to the appellants since it is the conceded case that after arrest of the appellant, Gurpreet Singh and recovery of the gun, empty and live cartridges, a separate case bearing FIR No.49 dated 06.08.1995, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was registered at Police Station, Mehna, and for the said case, the trial of Gurpreet Singh (appellant) was conducted separately but simultaneously with this case by the learned trial court. The gun was produced in the said case which had been exhibited as Ex.P-1. The same Presiding Officer who had decided the present case had decided the case bearing FIR No.49 dated 06.08.1995. The judgments of both the cases were pronounced on the same date. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that the evidence recorded in one case cannot be imported in second case but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the gun allegedly used in the crime was recovered from Gurpreet Singh and a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered and further the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PZ) would clinch the matter. It is apposite to mention here that ASI Vakeel Singh (PW5) had recovered the gun from Gurpreet Singh (appellant) in the presence of ASI Atma Singh Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [18] (PW6) and both the witnesses are consistent with regard to the recovery of the gun from Gurpreet Singh (appellant).
24. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Darshan Singh that at the time of occurrence, Darshan Singh alleged to have embraced Karamjit Singh (PW3), in that eventuality, he should have also received the pallet injuries but there was no injury on his person, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove his presence at the spot is also not tenable. Both the witnesses Karamjit Singh (PW3) and Satnam Kaur (PW4) are consistent in their depositions that it was Darshan Singh who had motive on his part to cause injury to Karamjit Singh (PW3) and he had grappled with Karamjit Singh and thereafter, Gurpreet Singh (appellant) had fired a shot. Even otherwise, it is not necessary that in all probabilities in such a scenario, the person who had embraced the injured would suffer injury. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The defence has not cross- examined injured Karamjit Singh (PW3) with regard to the portion of his body from which he was caught by Darshan Singh.
20. In view of the above and the findings recorded by the learned trial court, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants so far as their conviction is concerned. As far as the sentence part is concerned though learned counsel for the appellants have not advanced arguments in that regard but the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 and since then the sword is hanging on the appellants and as such, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307, IPC, appears to be on higher side, therefore, the substantive sentence of appellants Gurpreet Singh Sharma Seema 2014.04.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [19] and Darshan Singh is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months each. However, there would be no change in the remaining order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
21. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the appeals are partly allowed.
April 03, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi)
meenu/seema Judge
Sharma Seema
2014.04.23 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Crl.A.No.385-SB of 2001 (O&M) [20]
Sharma Seema
2014.04.23 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh