Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Kunjpura, instituted police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 304, 308 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act.

On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial, which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and the latter framed charge under Sections 302, 304, 307, 308 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act against the appellant, whereto, latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.

So, the facts remains that the deceased and the appellant had no enmity with each other. Even the appellant and the injured had no enmity. Such, thus, being the situation, appellant had no motive or intention to kill the deceased, as also, he had no motive or intention to make an attempt to murder Samunder Singh by firing through the carbine. Even the prosecution was satisfied that offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are not made out against the appellant and that is why, the police report was not submitted by the respondent against appellant for arraigning him for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Learned trial court framed alternative charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. There is no discussion in the impugned judgment regarding offences punishable under Sections 308 and 304 IPC. The main charge was for these offences. Before convicting the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, it was required of the learned trial Court to come to a definite finding that offences under Sections 304 and 308 IPC are not made out against the appellant and only offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are made out, wherefor, appellant was charged alternatively.

So, he is guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 308 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. Learned trial Court fell in grave error by convicting and sentencing the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Thus, the appeal ought to be and is, hereby, partly allowed and appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and he is, however, held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 308 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act.As per custody certificate placed on record, the appellant had undergone the imprisonment for five years, as on 09.02.2012 So, the ends of justice can be met by sentencing the appellant to the imprisonment already undergone.

Consequently, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 308 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. Undergone imprisonment shall run concurrently for all the three offences. Appellant shall pay a fine of ` 10,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC and in default, thereof, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He shall also pay fine of `2,000/- for commission of offence punishable under section 308 IPC and in default, thereof, he shall further undergo imprisonment for two months. He shall also pay fine of ` 1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in default, thereof, he shall undergo imprisonment for one month.