Skip to content


Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPresent: Mr. A.P.S. Deol Senior Advocate with
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
.....made by rajinder pal. pw-4 rajinder pal has stated that at the time of occurrence accused yogesh kumar was armed with a double barrel gun and his son mandeep kumar were standing on the roof of their house. yogesh raj was raised a lalkara saying that he will not be allowed to go un-spared. accused mandeep kumar was having brick bats in his hands. by raising said lalkara accused yogesh raj fired a shot from the said gun. so far as mandeep kumar is concerned, pw-4 rajinder pal has not even attributed any lalkara to him. raj kumar and rajinder pal are discrepant regarding lalkara. no overt act has been attributed to accused mandeep kumar. he was stated to be a student. even if his presence is admitted that does not attract the provision of section 34 of the act, otherwise also,.....
Judgment:

Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGHT COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) Date of Decision : 17.09.2013.

Yogesh Raj and another ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*** K.C.Puri, J.(Oral) CM No.65833 of 2011 Learned counsel for the appellant do not press this application.

The application stands dismissed as not pressed.

Main Case Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 22.03.2001 passed by Sh.

Chanan Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the accused/appellant Yogesh Raj was convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Kanchan rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 2 307 of Indian Penal Code.

He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Accused/appellant Mandeep Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stated, complainant Raj Kumar made a statement to the police that on 28.03.1995 at about 11.50 p.m.In his statement, he has stated that he in partnership with his sister's husband Rajinder Pal Singh and one Sukhdev Kohli was running an Oil Factory situated on the back side of the house of accused/appellant Yogesh Raj at Mandi Rampura Phul.

They intended to construct a godown in the factory plot.

On 28.03.1995 at about 6.30 p.m., complainant Raj Kumar accompanied by Shri Rajinder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Kohli took some measurements for the purpose in the said plot.

Thereafter complainant Raj Kumar as well as Rajinder Pal Singh were standing side by side at a distance from a transformer also lying installed inside the factory/plot and his sister Nirmala Devi and their partner Sh.

Sukhdev Kohli were standing just near to that transformer.

Accused Yogesh Raj duly armed with his .12 bore Double Barrel licensed gun and accused Mandeep Kumar armed with some brick bats, who intended to pressurise the complainant and thereby to occupy their plot, were Kanchan 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 3 found standing on the roof of their adjoining house.

Accused Yogesh Raj challenged the complainant by raising a lalkara that they should not be spared on that day and in furtherance of their common intention, both the accused with an intent to kill them fired a shot from double barrel gun towards complainant Raj Kumar and Sh.

Rajinder Pal Singh, the pellets of which hit both of them.

They raised an alarm Marditta Marditta on which both the accused fled away along with their weapons.

The occurrence was also witnessed by complainant's sister Nirmala Devi and Sukhdev Kohli.

After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned trial Court after going through the record, framed charge under Section 307 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Yogesh Raj, whereas charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Mandeep Kumar, to which, both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined PW-1 Dr.

Hari Om Aggarwal, EMO, PW-2 Pritam Kaur, Arms License Clerk, PW-3 Raj Kumar (complainant).PW-4 Rajinder Pal, PW-5 HC Jaspal Singh, PW-6 DSP Surjit Singh, PW-7 HC Rajinder Singh, PW-8 Constable Kanwaljit Singh, PW-9 Constable Karnail Singh and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering certain documents.

The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they Kanchan 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 4 denied and stated that they have been falsely implicated.

They have stated that the alleged fire was fired by some unidentified persons but the complainant party on suspicion involved them.

The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 DSP Avtar Singh and closed their defence evidence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, found both the accused guilty and convicted them accordingly.

Feeling dis-satisfying with the above said judgment and order dated 22.03.2001, the present appeal has been preferred by both the accused/appellants.

On the last date of hearing, the compromise was placed on record.

Notice of the compromise was given to the learned State counsel, who has filed the affidavit of Surinder Pal, Inspector/SHO Police Station City, Rampura confirming the factum of compromise.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mandeep Kumar has submitted that the allegation against the accused Mandeep Kumar is that he was present along with his father on the roof of his house.

He has not been attributed a lalkara.

He has been declared innocent.

He was just a student at the time of occurrence.

Learned counsel further contended that he has been wrongly convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the Kanchan 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 5 accused, has examined PW-3 Raj Kumar and PW-4 Rajinder Pal.

PW-3 Raj Kumar has stated that the accused Yogesh Raj along with his son was present on the roof of his house.

Accused Yogesh Raj was armed with double barrel gun and his son Mandeep Kumar was having brick bats in his hand.

Accused Yogesh Raj and his sons raised alarm that they should not be spared.

Accused Yogesh Raj fired with his .12 bore gun.

Similar is the statement made by Rajinder Pal.

Pw-4 Rajinder Pal has stated that at the time of occurrence accused Yogesh Kumar was armed with a double barrel gun and his son Mandeep Kumar were standing on the roof of their house.

Yogesh Raj was raised a lalkara saying that he will not be allowed to go un-spared.

Accused Mandeep Kumar was having brick bats in his hands.

By raising said lalkara accused Yogesh Raj fired a shot from the said gun.

So far as Mandeep Kumar is concerned, PW-4 Rajinder Pal has not even attributed any lalkara to him.

Raj Kumar and Rajinder Pal are discrepant regarding lalkara.

No overt act has been attributed to accused Mandeep Kumar.

He was stated to be a student.

Even if his presence is admitted that does not attract the provision of Section 34 of the Act, otherwise also, there is a compromise between the parties.

In the cross-examination, PW-3 Raj Kumar has stated that some unidentified person has caused firearm injury and accused were named on the basis of suspicion.

The accused is of a young age.

He has been declared innocent during the couRs.of investigation.

So, his participation and his presence is doubtful at the spot.

Therefore, accused/appellant Kanchan 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.588-SB of 2001(O&M) 6 Mandeep Kumar stands acquitted.

So far as accused Yogesh Raj is concerned, there is a compromise and as per custody certificate, he has already undergone incarceration for a period of three months 13 days.

In authority Angrez Singh versus The State of Haryana, 1983(2) RCR441 this Court reduced the sentence to already undergone in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act in view of the compromise.

In authority Ram Pujan and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973(2) SCC456also the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence in view of the compromise.

So, considering all the circumstances, the sentence of appellant/accused Yogesh Raj stands reduced to the period already undergone.

However, he is directed to pay `10,000/- as cost of litigation within a period of two months from today.

The amount if already deposited shall be adjusted in that amount.

In case the cost of litigation is not paid within the stipulated period, then the appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

September 17, 2013.

(K.C.PURI) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2013.09.23 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //