Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In the instant case, accused Subhash has also been charged for committing the offence punishable u/s­336 IPC. In this case, it has been stated on behalf of the prosecution that on the day of incident, accused Subhash also fired a shot in the air from the aforesaid country made pistol in the procession of marriage of Ajay in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and the said factum has been established on record by PW­4 Mukesh Kumar, who in his examination in chief specifically stated that accused Sunil took out a Katta from his dub (inner side of his pant) and started firing in the air and accused Subhash also started firing from the said Katta after taking the from accused Sunil. The said fact has also been corroborated on record from the contents of DVC , which was played in the court during the evidence of PW­3 Sushil Kumar ( Videographer ) and therein during the marriage procession, accused Subhash was seen firing in the air from a country made pistol. In these circumstances, in view of the material on record, the accused­Subhash has also rendered himself liable for the offence punishable u/s­ 336 IPC.

Accused Sunil @ Site in JC and accused Sandeep & Subhash on bail with their counsel Sh. B.B.Sharma.

Accused Ravinder has expired.

Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, accused Sunil @ Sitte has been convicted u/s­304 ( Part­I) IPC, u/s­201 IPC and u/s­ 27 of Arms Act. Further, accused ­ Sandeep has been convicted u/s­201 IPC and accused­Subhash Kaushik has also been convicted u/s ­ 336 IPC.

U/s             :     304 ( Part­I)/201/336 IPC  and  27 Arms Act
P.S             :     Sultan Puri


ORDER  ON  THE  POINT  OF  SENTENCE

In the present case, convict ­Sunil @ Sitte has been convicted u/s­304 ( Part­I) IPC, u/s­201 IPC and u/s­ 27 of Arms Act. Further, convict ­ Sandeep has been convicted u/s­201 IPC and convict ­Subhash Kaushik has also been convicted u/s ­336 IPC.

I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld.Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel for the convicts.

5. In the present case, convict ­Sunil @ Sitte has been convicted u/s­304 ( Part­I) IPC, u/s­201 IPC and u/s­27 of Arms Act. Further, convict­Sandeep has been convicted u/s­201 IPC and convict ­Subhash Kaushik has also been convicted u/s ­336 IPC.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of offences and having regard to the adverse impact which such like offences can have on the society at large, I am of the considered opinion that the convicts are not entitled to any leniency in the fact and circumstances of the present case.