Balkar Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2017 ...
Balkar Singh and others ................Appellants vs.
State of Punjab .................Respondent 2) CRA-S-1025-SB of 2004 (O&M) ...
Gurnam Singh and others ................Appellants vs.
State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate for appellants (in CRA-S-856-SB-2004) Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants (in CRA-S-1025-SB-2004) Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
...
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -2H. S. Madaan, J. By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of CRAS-856-SB -2004 filed by Balkar Singh, Swaran Singh, Baldev Singh and Gurmit Singh and CRA-S-1025-SB-2004 filed by Gurnam Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Darshan Singh, Piara Singh and Mohan Singh all of them being accused in FIR No. 66 dated 16.4.2000, for offences under Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, registered with Police Station Sidhwan Bet, were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, and vide judgment dated 31.3.2004, they were convicted and sentenced as follows:- Sr.
No.
Name of accused Under Section Sentence 1 Gurnam Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2 Mukhtiar Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
U/s 27 Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3 Darshan Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Piara Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -3Sr. No.
Name of accused Under Section Sentence U/s 27 Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
5 Mohan Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
6 Balkar Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
7 Swaran Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Baldev Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
U/s 27 Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
9 Gurmit Singh U/s 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 307/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that complainant Kashmir Singh alongwith his brother Balbir Singh had purchased four killas of land in village Bagian, which had been given to Kashmira Singh Ex-Sarpanch of the village on rent for the purpose of cultivation. That piece of land was subject matter of dispute between the complainant and his brother Balbir Singh on one side and Balkar
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -4Singh, Swaran Singh, Baldev Singh and Gurmeet Singh on the other side. There was another dispute pending with regard to 10 killa of land situated in village Sherewal near village Bagian between the the two parties. Near that land, the complainant and his brother had sown wheat crop; that on 16.4.2000 at abut 7.30 A.M. Kashmir Singh ExSarpanch informed the complainant that accused Balkar Singh etc. with the help of accused Mukhtiar Singh etc. had gone to harvest the wheat crop of complainant from both the disputed pieces of land, as such the complainant alongwith his brother Balbir Singh, nephew Surjit Singh, Satta Singh and Jarnail Singh proceeded towards village Bagian in Tata 407. When the said vehicle was about 1⁄2 km short of village Bagian, at about 7.30 A.M.
one Maruti car having occupants Balkar Singh, Swaran Singh, Baldev Singh and Gurmeet Singh came, which was being followed by a jeep. The jeep over took Tata 407 vehicle. At that time Baldev Singh was armed with a rifle. Those accused started raising lalkaras that Kashmir Singh etc. had come and they should not be allowed to go scot free. Accused Baldev Singh then fired a shot from his rifle, but fortunately, nobody was hurt. Accused kept on raising lalkaras and the jeep was taken to the house of accused Mohan Singh located in village abadi. Complainant and his companions stopped their vehicle on the passage and after alighting from it, tried to run away in order to save their lives. However, Piara Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Darshan Singh, Mohan Singh and Gurnam Singh accused also alighted from their jeep.
Accused Darshan Singh raised lalkara.
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -5shoulder and on the fingers of right arm of the complainant. Mukhtiar Singh who was also armed with double barrel gun, fired a shot which hit on the person of Satta Singh, who was trying to lift the complainant. Thereafter, accused Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh again fired shots each from their guns, but shots went over them. In the meantime, Kashmira Singh Ex-Sarpanch alongwith Karnail Singh also arrived there and then accused managed to escape alongwith their respective weapons. Complainant and Satta Singh were then taken to Civil Hospital, Sidhwan Bet, from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. Motive for the incident was land dispute between the two parties. On such statement of the complainant, the Investigating Officer put his endorsement and then sent ruqa to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Thereafter the matter was investigated. The accused were arrested in this case.
After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against accused was prepared and filed in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. Copies of documents relied thereupon were supplied to the accused, free of cost, as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and then finding that prima facie charge for offence under Sections 307, 149, 148 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, was disclosed against the accused, they were charge sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The case was fixed for evidence of prosecution, during the course of which, the prosecution examined in as much as 10 witnesses as per details below:-
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -6PW-1 Dr. Narinder Sharma PW-2 Kashmir Singh PW-3 Satta Singh, PW-4 HC Amarjit Singh, PW-5 HC Chamkaur Singh PW-7 ASI Jaswant Singh PW-8 ASI Harbans Singh PW-9 HC Lakhwinder Singh PW-10 Kashmira Singh.
The Additional Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence Arms Licence Exhibit PX/1, and closed the prosecution evidence. Statements of accused were recorded under Section Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to them, but they denied the allegations pleading false implication. They further pleaded that Mukhtiar Singh alongwith his cousin Darshan Singh jointly purchased 10 acres of land owned by Central Government from one Baldev Singh, who delivered the possession of the same to them. It was also pleaded that accused in fact wanted to take forcible possession of that land and no occurrence had taken place. The accused in their defence examined DW-1 Hardeep Singh and DW-2 Jang Singh, DW-3 DSP Jasdev Singh and DW-4 Inspector Ravinder Pal Singh and closed the defence evidence.
The trial Court had formulated the following points for determination :- a) Whether on 16.4.2000 at abut 8.30 A.M. in the
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -7area of village Bassian, Jagraon, all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly caused hurt to Kashmir Singh and Satta Singh by means of fire arm?
b) Whether on the same date, time and place accused Piara Singh in prosecution of his common object with other accused, fired shots from 12 bore DBBL gun at Kashmir Singh with such an intention and under such circumstances that if by that they had caused the death of Kashmir Singh, they would have been guilty of murder?
c) Whether on the same date, time and place, accused Mukhtiar Singh in prosecution of his common object with other accused, fired shot from his 12 bore DBBL gun on Satta Singh with such an intention and under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused the death of Satta Singh, they would have been guilty of murder?
d) Whether on the same date, time and place, accused Piara Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Baldev Singh had in their possession licenced 12 bore DBBL guns and ammunition which they used for unlawful purpose i.e. to cause hurt to Kashmir Singh?
After hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted and
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -8sentenced the accused as mentioned above, which left them aggrieved and they have filed the present appeals.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel besides going through the record of the case. At the very outset, it may be stated that as per reports received, appellant-accused Gurnam Singh s/o Bakar Singh, Baldev Singh s/o Maghar Singh and Gurmit Singh s/o Piara Singh, have expired, as such proceedings against them stand abated. As regarding the remaining appellant-accused-convicts, Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh are attributed fire arm injuries. The prosecution has successfully established on the record by bringing enough cogent and convincing evidence in the form of eye witness account by way of statements of complainant Kashmir Singh - PW-2 and Satta Singh PW-3, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, by examining PW-1 Dr. Narinder Sharma.
Both Kashmir Singh and Satta Singh having suffered injuries in the incident are stamped witnesses and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. They were cross examined at length on behalf of the accused, but they could not be shattered on any material point as regards the accused assailants. The account given by these PWs qua both the assailants is cogent, convincing and reliable. Both the PWs have named other persons also, but no injury is attributed to any one of them. The fact cannot be lost sight of that there is a tendency amongst people of this region to throw the net wide so as to rope in as many persons as possible of the opposite party in an incident of this nature.
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -9Piara Singh, appears to be doubtful. The maxim Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not made applicable by the Courts in India. I find the evidence lead by the prosecution qua Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh, to be worthy of reliance, whereas it is not so as regards the remaining accused, but for that reason the main accused Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh cannot get any advantage. Therefore, the impugned judgment as regards conviction of Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh, is upheld, whereas it is set aside as regards the remaining accused.
Coming to the sentence part, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the incident had taken place on 16.4.2000. More than 17 years have passed since then. The accused convicts have not committed any criminal act during that time. Further more, accused Mukhtiar Singh is aged more than 50 years, whereas accused - Piara Singh is aged about 57 years. As per custody certificate, Mukhtiar Singh has undergone 4 years, 1 month and 21 days of imprisonment out of the total sentence, whereas Piara Singh has undergone 4 years, 1 month and 20 days of imprisonment. Therefore a lenient view in the matter may be taken as regard the sentence part. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellants accused-convicts Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh are sentenced to imprisonment to the period already undergone by them, while in custody in this case.
Therefore the impugned judgment is upheld as regards the conviction part qua the appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Piara
CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 -10Singh. As regards the sentence part, the same is modified and these appellants are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them as mentioned supra. However, the fine part shall remain intact. The trial Court is directed to recover the amount of fine from these two accused.
The remaining accused - Balkar Singh, Swaran Singh, Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh are acquitted of the charge framed against them.
Accordingly, CRA-S-856-SB of 2004 qua appellants Balkar Singh and Swaran Singh stands accepted, whereas qua Baldev Singh and Gurmit Singh stands abated, as mentioned supra and CRAS-1025-SB of 2004 qua Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh stands accepted and qua Gurnam Singh stands abated as mentioned supra, whereas qua Mukhtiar Singh and Piara Singh the same stands disposed of with above modification in sentence. ( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 19.12.2017.
chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No