Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Fauji vs State Of Punjab on 18 January, 2016
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.660 of 2015 (O&M).
Decided on:-18.01.2016.
Sandeep Kumar.
.........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
.........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
Present:- Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.4.2014 whereby learned Magistrate held him guilty for committing the offence under Section 224 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 13.11.2014.
As per the prosecution story, on 16.7.2013 HC Chhajju Singh along with other police officials had come from Sangrur on Government YAG DUTT 2016.01.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.660 of 2015 -2- vehicle in the Court at Moonak to attend the Court proceedings in FIR No.9 dated 2.2.2010 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against accused Sandeep Singh @ Fauji i.e. the petitioner herein and 4 other accused including one lady. All the accused were lodged in Bakhshi Khana. At about 11.30 a.m. when the case was called, the petitioner was going to be produced by HC Chhajju Singh and HC Karam Singh after releasing him from Bakhshi Khana in the Court while holding his arm. However, he fled away from their custody. On hearing the noise, HC Daljit Singh caught hold the petitioner and accordingly, he was arrested and confined in the Bakhshi Khana.
The case was registered against the accused and Challan was presented in the Court. Copy of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
The trial Court while examining HC Chhajju Singh (PW1), ASI Daljit Singh (PW2), Udesh, record Copyist (PW3), Constable Gurcharan Singh (PW4) and ASI Amarjit Singh, investigating officer (PW5) as well as statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 224 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appeal preferred against that judgment and order was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Hence, the present petition.
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the YAG DUTT 2016.01.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.660 of 2015 -3- petitioner, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate produced by the State, the petitioner has undergone 9 months and 8 days as actual sentence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner has completed his sentence, but he would like to address his arguments on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner was detained in Bakhshi Khana in the Court complex and while he was being taken from Bakhshi Khana for his production in the Court and was caught by arm by HC Chhaju Singh and HC Karam Singh, he got himself released from their custody and ran away. He has further submitted that when an accused is being taken by the police for his production in the Court, he is always being tied up with handcuff or chain (Hathkari) and not caught by arms. Moreover, the incident had taken place in the Court premises where a large number of Advocates, clerks and other persons were present, but no independent witness has been joined by the police. Therefore, non-examination of the independent witnesses before the trial Court is fatal to the case of the prosecution. No case under Section 224 IPC is made out from the facts and circumstances of the case as essential ingredients of Section 224 IPC were not proved by the prosecution. The allegation of attempt to escape from custody is not proved against the YAG DUTT 2016.01.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.660 of 2015 -4- petitioner beyond shadow of doubt.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has very limited scope to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. Both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding that at about 11.30 a.m. when the petitioner-accused was called in the Court, he along with other co-accused was taken out of the Bakhshi Khana. However, near the gate, the petitioner had tried to run away from the Court premises, but HC Daljit Singh caught hold of him with his both hands and apprehended him. HC Chhajju Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW1 has deposed against the petitioner and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was in custody in FIR No.9 dated 2.2.2010 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and when he was in the process of being produced in the Court, he tried to escape from the custody. However, it is only with the efforts of ASI Daljit Singh (PW2), the accused could not succeed in his endeavour. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the ingredients of Section 224 IPC, which read as under:
"224. Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, YAG DUTT 2016.01.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.660 of 2015 -5- shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
In the light of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2014 passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2014. As such, affirming the verdicts of the Court below, the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
January 18, 2016 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
YAG DUTT
2016.01.20 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document