Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001
Date of Decision : April 25, 2012
Dalip Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
1. By a common judgment, the Court intends to dispose of the present appeal filed by Dalip Singh and his nine co-convicts against their conviction and sentences for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, Criminal Appeal No. S-9-SB of 2002 filed by Dalip Singh convict against his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Criminal Revision No. 1413 of 2002 filed by aforementioned Dalip Singh against the acquittal of Naranjan Singh and nine others in the cross case under Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -2- Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, as all of them arise out of one and the same occurrence, which had taken place on 13.6.1992 at about 6.00/6.30 p.m.
2. According to the prosecution, complainant Gurnam Singh PW4 made statement Ex. PM before ASI Pal Singh in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur on 15.6.1992 at 2.00 p.m. wherein he stated that he was resident of village Phulra and an agriculturist by profession. His party had purchased 11 killas of land from Om Parkash son of Mehanga Ram. During consolidation proceedings, certain other numbers were allotted to the complainant, which were in possession of accused Dalip Chand son of Jagat Ram. After the demarcation, the complainant had sown sarson and masar crop in the land but Dalip Chand and others ploughed the same. On 13.6.1992 at about 5.00 p.m., the complainant, alongwith his father Naranjan Singh, uncle Mohinder Singh, brother Tarsem Singh and maternal grand-father Ajit Singh went to plough the land. They sowed maize and til crops in six kanals of land. After levelling the field with Suhaga, they came back to the house. At about 6.30 p.m., some persons came towards his house while hurling abuses. At this, his maternal grand-father Ajit Singh went to persuade them not to hurl abuses. The complainant followed him. When he reached near the ploughed land, accused Tilak Raj son of Rakha Ram gave a chhavi blow from its sharp edged side, which hit on the head of the complainant. Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -3- Another blow given from its reverse side hit on his waist as a result whereof the complainant became unconscious and fell down. While he was lying on the ground, he was caused more injuries and then dragged to the house of the accused. The complainant's aunt Mohinder Kaur, maternal grand mother Ajit Kaur and sister Manjit Kaur went to the house of the accused and raised an alarm. They had witnessed the entire occurrence. The accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Kashmira Singh removed the injured to the hospital and got him admitted. During the occurrence, the accused party had also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party.
3. Though the aforementioned statement made by complainant Gurnam Singh as well as medico legal reports of complainant Gurnam Singh, his brother Tarsem Singh, father Naranjan Singh, maternal grand- father Ajit Singh and cousin Tarsem Singh disclosed the commission of cognizable offences yet in view of the fact that FIR No. 47 dated 14.6.1992 under Sections 326, 324, 148, 149 IPC already stood registered on the statement of accused Dalip Singh son of Jagat Ram, the investigation of the case was directed to be conducted in the same FIR.
4. During the investigation conducted by ASI Pal Singh, the statements of Tarsem Singh, Naranjan Singh and Mohinder Singh were recorded. Rough site plan Ex.PQ was prepared. Injured Ajit Singh, Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -4- who had been referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar had also made a statement before the police. On 27.6.1992, ASI Pal Singh received an information regarding the death of Ajit Singh. He reached the hospital and prepared inquest report. The dead body was sent for autopsy. Offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case initiated at the instance of complaint Gurnam Singh. The accused, numbering eleven, were arrested and the weapons used by them in the occurrence were taken into possession.
5. On completion of the investigation, the appellants alongwith Surinder Singh @ Shinda were sent up for trial. They were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 326, 325, 324, 323, 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses.
7. PW1 Dr. Rana Verma deposed that he had medico legally examined Mohinder Singh on 14.6.1992 at 10.50 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 3.5 cm x. 0.5 cm curved on the scalp and frontal region, almost in the centre.
2. Multiple reddish blue contusions mainly on the right side of back, upper region with 1 to 2 contusions Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -5- extending on the left side also. Size of the contusions vary from 10 cm x 1 cm to 7.5 cm x 4 cm.
Total number of contusions approximately was eight.
3. A diffuse swelling 5 cm x 3.5 cm on the right leg in the calf muscle area.
4. A diffuse swelling 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left arm just above the left elbow joint.
Injuries No. 3 and 4 were declared as simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.1 which was caused with sharp edged weapon was kept under observation for x-ray examination. He proved copy of the medico legal report Ex. PA.
8. PW1 also examined Tarsem Singh on the same day at 11.00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. A diffuse swelling 7 cm x 4.5 cm on the right fore-
arm near right cubital fossa and diffuse swelling 3 cm x 2.5 cm, 4 cm above the right wrist joint.
Underlying bones fractured at both the places. Underlying crepitus was positive. Patient was unable to move the right fore-arm. There was no movement of pronation and no supination.
Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -6-
2. Penetrating incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of right side below posterior axillary fold and diffuse swelling 5 cm x 3.5 cm on the upper back right side.
3. An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the scalp on right frontal parietal region.
4. A penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left thigh in its postero lateral aspect.
5. A diffuse swelling 5 cm x 1 cm on the back on right side and neck and also complained of pain on left fore-arm.
Injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature. He stated that injury No.3 was caused with sharp edged weapon whereas injuries No.2 and 4 with pointed weapon and injuries No.1 and 5 with blunt weapon. He proved copy of M.L.R. Ex.PB. He also declared injury No.2 as grievous in nature on receipt of the x-ray report.
9. PW1 also examined Gurnam Singh on the same day at 11.10 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 6.5 cm x 1 cm on the right frontal parietal region of scalp. Underlying vault bone and periosteum was cut. Meninges and brain matter were Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -7- coming out with pulsations. The patient was conscious, pulse was 86 per minute. B.P. was 110/70 MM of mercury. Pupils nothing abnormal detected.
Respiration 22 per minute.
2. A reddish blue contusion 8 cm x 1 cm on the lower back in the middle and extending on both sides. Injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.2 was declared simple in nature caused with blunt weapon. He proved copy of the medico legal report Ex.PC.
10. PW1 also examined Ajit Singh on the same day at 11.25 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm on the scalp in right frontal region.
2. A penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the left hypochondric region of abdomen. Abdomen was distended. Fever was present not passed stools since 13.6.1992 till 14.6.1992.
3. A penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm also on the back on right side in its lateral aspect.
4. A diffuse swelling 7 cm x 4 cm on the left leg in its posterior aspect. There was swelling also on the left ankle joint.Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -8-
Injuries No.1 and 4 were kept under observation for x-ray report whereas injuries No.2 and 3 were kept for surgical opinion. He proved copy of the medico legal report Ex. PD.
11. PW1 also medico legally examined Naranjan Singh on the same day at 11.35 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 8.5 cm x 1 cm on the scalp in right fronto parietal region.
2. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the left arm, 5 cm above the left cubital fossa.
3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the right leg in its lower part.
4. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left hand, middle finger.
5. An abrasion 7 cm x 0.5 cm on the upper back on right side and contusion reddish blue, 3 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the back.
6. Abrasion three in number obliquely placed and on the back on left side.
He kept injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 under observation and declared other injuries as simple in nature. He further opined that injury Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -9- No.1 was caused with a sharp edged weapon and the remaining with blunt weapon. He proved the copy of the medico legal report Ex.PE.
12. PW2 Dr. H.S.Bajwa deposed on the basis of X-ray examination of Tarsem Singh that he found a fracture of 5th rib, right side chest. No fracture was seen in the skull portion. He also did not find any fracture in the skull and left arm of Naranjan Singh. He declared Gurnam Singh, Mohinder Singh, Naranjan Singh and Tarsem Singh to be fit to make statements.
13. PW3 Dr. Jaimal Singh deposed about the operation of Ajit Singh on 15.6.1992 during which he found two small perfortions in pelvic colon. He also deposed that Ajit Singh expired on 26.6.1992 and death was the direct cause of the injuries received by him
14. PW4 Gurnam Singh, PW5 Tarsem Singh, PW6 Naranjan Singh and PW7 Mohinder Singh testified about the ocular account of the occurrence.
15. PW8 Charanjit Singh, Patwari proved the scaled plan Ex.PN prepared by him.
16. PW9 ASI Pal Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of the case.
17. PW10 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai stated that he had conducted post- Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -10- mortem on the dead body of Ajit Singh on 28.6.1992 at 9.30 a.m. and found the following injuries:-
1. A partially healed wound 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on right side of fore-head 5 cm below frontal hairline. Slough and necrotic tissue were present in the wound.
2. Partially healed incised penetrating wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm present on the front of left lower chest 22 cm below arm pit in the anterior axillary line.
Slough and necrotic tissue was present in the wound.
On dissection of injury No.2, injury was communicating with abdominal cavity after cutting through the parieties through the left paracolic gutter. Small gut loops were glued together with fibrenous adhensions, omentum was found rolled around the pelvic colon at the site of colostomy. Fibrenous adhensions were present around the pelvic colon and omentum. Foul smelling pus mixed with fibrinous adhension and necrotic plaques was present on both right and left paracolic gutters.
3. Healed stitched wound 19 cm long present on the front of abdomen in middle with 11 stitches intact giving a curve around the umblicus on right side.
4. Colostomy wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm present on the Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -11- left hypochondric region with 5 stitches intact.
5. Partially healed incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm present on back of right side of chest just below the inferior angle of scapula. On dissection skin deep, slough and necrotic tissue were present in the wound.
6. A diffused swelling was present on the right tempero-parietal region of head. On dissection extracranial haemotoma dark brown in colour present underneath the scalp.
7. A diffused swelling was present on left ankle joint. The doctor gave the cause of death as septicaemic shock which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him, the injuries were ante mortem in nature. He proved copy of the post mortem report Ex. PD.
18. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that it was the complainant party, which had come to their land and caused injuries to them. The complainant party had concocted a false story. Ajit Singh had died due to the negligence of the doctors.
19. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Dr. Jaswant Singh and DW2 Constable Sukhdev Singh.
Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -12-
20. DW1 Dr. Jaswant Singh deposed that he had medico legally examined accused Dalip Singh son of Jagat Ram on 14.6.1992 at 9.00 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. 5 cm x 2 cm bruise on inner side of humerus bone of right arm, bluish black in colour.
2. 15 cm x 2 cm bruise on back of its left side, bluish black in colour.
3. 5 cm x 1 cm incised wound on left iliac crest of hip bone on its upper portion. Clotted blood present. Do not bleed on touch.
4. An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on front of right leg. Wound bone deep underlying bone was partially cut. Clotted blood present. Wound was in the middle of ankle and knee joint.
He declared injury No.4 as grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were simple in nature.
21. DW1 also examined accused Dalip Singh son of Jagat Singh on the same day at 9.15 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm on lateral side of left arm. Wound was 6 cm above wrist joint.
Wound bone deep. Underlying bone was partially cut.
Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -13-
2. A diffused swelling below elbow joint of left tender touch. Bluish black in colour.
3. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on back of left leg about and middle of ankle and knee joint. Wound muscle deep. Do not bleed on touch.
He declared injury No.1 as grievous in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon.
22. DW1 also medico legally examined accused Daulat Ram on the same day at 9.30 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm in front of left leg.
About in middle of ankle and knee joint. Wound was bone deep. Clotted blood present. Do not bleed on touch. Underlying bone was partially cut.
2. An incised wound 9 cm x 0.5 cm on lateral side of humerus bone of left arm about in its middle.
Wound muscle deep. Do not bleed on touch.
3. A bruise 12 cm x 3 cm on left of back bluish black in colour.
4. A bruise 10 cm x 4 cm on right side of back.
Bluish black in colour.
He declared injury No.1 as grievous in nature and caused Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -14- by sharp edged weapon.
23. DW2 Constable Sukhdev Singh proved the copy of FIR No. 47/1992 Ex. DH.
24. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the field where the occurrence had taken place belonged to Ajit Singh and, therefore, the accused other than Surinder Singh @ Shinda had formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of that unlawful assembly, Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand voluntarily caused the murder of Ajit Singh whereas Daulat Ram caused grievous hurt to Tarsem Singh with blunt weapon, Ram Kishan caused him a grievous hurt with a sharp pointed weapon, Tilak Raj caused grievous hurt to PW Gurnam Singh with sharp edged weapon and also caused injuries to Mohinder Singh and Naranjan Singh. Accordingly, Surinder Singh @ Shinda accused was acquitted of the charges against him whereas the remaining accused, who are the appellants before this Court, were convicted and sentenced as follows:-
i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 IPC;Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -15-
ii) Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh under Section 302 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year:
iii) Tilak Raj under Section 326 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 326/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months;
iv) Ram Kishan under Section 326 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 326/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months;
v) Daulat Ram under Section 325 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 325/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months;
vi) Dalip Singh under Section 324 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 324/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each;
vii) Hardev Singh @ Ghona under Section 324 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 324/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each ;
viii) Pritam Singh @ Billa under Section 324 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 324/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each;
ix) Surat Singh under Section 323 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 323/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each;Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -16-
x) Buta Singh @ Buti under Section 323 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 323/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each;
xi) Narinder Singh @ Kala under Section 323 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 323/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
25. Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand son of Jagat Ram was also tried under Section 25 of the Arms Act for being found in possession of barchha (spear) Ex.P1. This case was committed for trial alongwith the main case under Section 302 IPC.
26. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Gurpal Singh, PW2 Constable Vinod Kumar and PW3 SI Pal Singh.
27. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record convicted aforementioned Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand son of Jagat Ram for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
28. In the cross case initiated on the basis of statement made by Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand son of Jagat Ram by lodging FIR No. 47 Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -17- dated 14.6.1992, Naranjan Singh and nine others were tried for the offences under Sections 148, 326, 324, 323, 149 IPC.
29. The trial Court after going through the records came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations against the accused therein beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all of them were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
30. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the occurrence in question had taken place in the fields of Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh accused where the complainant party had entered and after ploughing the land, they had sowed maize and til crops. When the accused protested, the complainant party caused injuries to said Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh accused as well as Dalip Singh son of Jagat Ram and Daulat Ram son of Rakha Ram. In exercise of right of self defence of person and property, injuries were caused to the complainant party. It was also submitted that there was delay in lodging the report with the police and, therefore, no implicit reliance could be placed upon the prosecution version to return the finding of guilt against the appellants. It was further submitted that while making statement Ex.PM before the police, PW4 Gurnam Singh remained silent about the injuries received by Ajit Singh, since deceased. Similar was the position about the other eye witnesses when their statements were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was not clear as to who was Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -18- responsible in causing the death of Ajit Singh. Finally, it was submitted that as Ajit Singh had died on 26.6.1992, it could not be said with certainty that his death was on account of infliction of injuries as the occurrence had taken place about thirteen days earlier and the doctor who had performed the post mortem had given the cause of death as septicaemic shock.
31. Learned State counsel had opposed the pleas taken on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, none of the appellants deserve any relief in the appeal.
32. While making statement Ex. PM before ASI Pal Singh on 15.6.1992 at 2.00 p.m., complainant Gurnam Singh had stated that his family had purchased 11 killas of land from one Om Parkash son of Mehanga Ram. During consolidation proceedings the other numbers which were in possession of accused Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh son of Jagat Ram were delivered to him. After demarcation, complainant Gurnam Singh had sowed sarson and masar crops in the said land which was objected to by accused Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh accused and others, who ploughed the same. Even on the day of the occurrence, i.e. 13.6.1992 at about 5.00 p.m., the complainant alongwith his near relatives went to the land in question and after ploughing the same, sowed maize and til crops. One and half hour thereafter, some of the Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -19- accused persons came towards the house of the complainant. Ajit Singh, maternal grand-father of the complainant tried to persuade them to desist from hurling abuses. The complainant also followed him. In the process, they reached near the ploughed land where injuries were caused.
While testifying before the trial Court as PW4, Gurnam Singh stated that the injuries were inflicted to him and his relatives in the land which was ploughed by them. Similarly, PW9 ASI Pal Singh deposed that the injuries were caused to the witnesses at point A which was in the land of deceased Ajit Singh. PW8 Charanjit Singh, Patwari had proved the scaled site-plan Ex. PN. As per the site-plan, the occurrence had taken place at point A which was located in rectangle No. 13 killa No. 23. PW9 ASI Pal Singh had deposed that he had taken into possession copies of jamabandi Ex. PU and khasra girdawari Ex.PV vide recovery memo Ex. PX. A perusal of jamabandi Ex. PU and khasra girdawari Ex. PV would reveal that the land comprised in rectangle No. 13 killa No. 23 was owned and in possession of deceased Ajit Singh. In view of the aforementioned evidence, which is cogent and convincing, the Court has no other option but to hold that the place where the occurrence had taken place was owned by and under the possession of deceased Ajit Singh.
Once it is held that it was the complainant party, which was Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -20- in possession of the land where the occurrence had taken place, the accused cannot derive any benefit of exercising the right of private defence of person and property as no such right was available to them.
33. It is true that statement Ex. PM was made by complainant Gurnam Singh to ASI Pal Singh on 15.6.1992 at 2.00 p.m. Though the occurrence had taken place on 13.6.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. yet the delay in making the statement before the police cannot be termed as fatal as the accused party had admitted of having inflicted injuries to the complainant party. At the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that even the statement made by Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand accused to ASI Pal Singh after about twenty hours of the occurrence. Therefore, no benefit accrues to the accused party on that ground.
34. It is true that in the statement Ex. PM, complainant Gurnam Singh had not mentioned anything about the injuries received by Ajit Singh, since deceased and same was the position about the other injured witnesses of the complainant side but while appearing as PW5 Tarsem Singh, who had also received injuries in the occurrence had deposed that it was Dalip Chand @ Dalip Singh accused, who had caused sota and barchha blows to Ajit Singh. Said PW5 Tarsem Singh was not cross-examined by the defence on the said point. At the time of his medico-legal examination, Ajit Singh was found to have received one incised injury, two penetrating wounds and one swelling. The presence Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -21- of these injuries was ample corroboration to the statement of PW5 Tarsem Singh. Similarly PW10 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai while conducting post mortem on the dead body of Ajit Singh found seven injuries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that who out of the appellants had caused injuries to the deceased.
35. Though PW10 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai after conducting post mortem on the dead body of Ajit Singh on 28.6.1992 had given the cause of death as septicaemic shock yet at the same time he declared that all the injures were ante mortem in nature and the septicaemic shock was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time that had elapsed between injuries and death was within about two weeks and between death and post mortem it was about thirty six to forty eight hours. As it was on account of the injuries which were received by Ajit Singh in the occurrence which had finally led to his suffering septicaemic shock which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out.
36. We have gone through the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and find that the same is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. No case is made out for any interference in the findings recorded by the trial Court in convicting Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -22- and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Sections 148, 302, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC.
37. As Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand was found in possession of barchha at the time of his arrest and he did not possess any licence for keeping the same, he has rightly been convicted by the trial Court under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- alongwith its default clause. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one year imposed upon him for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act can be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in the main case.
38. Coming to the revision filed by Dalip Singh son of Jagat Ram against the acquittal of Naranjan Singh and nine others, we do not find any impropriety in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC especially when no appeal had been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Naranjan Singh and others.
39. As a result of above, conviction and sentences of Dalip Singh and his nine co-convicts are maintained. The conviction of Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is also maintained. However, his substantive sentence of imprisonment is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment Crl. Appeal No. D-687-DB of 2001 -23- awarded in the main case. The acquittal of Naranjan Singh and nine others in the cross case under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC is upheld.
40. The two appeals and the revision are, accordingly, dismissed except for running of substantive sentence of imprisonment of Dalip Singh @ Dalip Chand under Section 25 of the Arms Act concurrent with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in the main case.
( M.M.KUMAR ) ( T.P.S. MANN )
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
April 25, 2012
ajay-1