Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
Mukhtiar Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 434 and 489 of 1985,
Decided on 4-1-1995.
AND
Sohan Lal, Appellant
Versus
Satnam Singh and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. S. Sodhi and Mr. R.C. Kohli, Advocates, for Appellants; Mrs. Amita Gupta, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Suri, Advocate, for Respondents.
From the Judgment and Order of Special Court, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1984 and Trial No. 70 of 1985, Dated 19-4-1985.
India Penal Code,1860 - Sections ,302/34 397/34 460 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section ,313 - Arms Act – Section, 25 - FIR - Investigation - Case when far of deceased was watching television along with his or family members on hearing firing shots he came out on to Courtyard and saw two persons standing near his son deceased- One of m was armed with a while or had a pistol in his hand- person who was armed with a in presence of PW 5 inflicted some injuries on while or person took away bore DBBL gun belonging which was lying near cot in Courtyard where was sitting- also noticed some persons standing at a distance in darkness- On hearing noise assailants as well as or persons ran away- Finding in a seriously injured condition removed him to Mission Hospital - Mann Emergency Medical Officer sent information to police regarding arrival of in injured condition at hospital- On receipt of telephonic information SHO police station proceeded to hospital- In meanwhile it appears succumbed to his injuries- Statement was recorded reaching hospital and that statement forms basis –Held, Court are conscious of fact that occurrence took place more than a decade ago and conviction was recorded almost years ago- But looking to manner in which judgment has been rendered by trial Court it appears appropriate to us to remand case to trial Court for writing a fresh judgment after providing opportunities of hearing to both parties on basis of material which is already on record- We could have undertaken ourselves and evidence to determine guilt or otherwise of accused person but we are of opinion that our doing so may prejudice one or party as it would deprive concerned party of its right of first appeal to this Court by an order of learned Judge in Chambers - Court do not consider it appropriate to cancel bail during fresh hearing of case by trial Court but we direct that y shall remain present before trial Court during hearing of case and in event of being found guilty y shall be remanded to custody- In case y or either of m does not appear before trial Court during hearing his bail shall stand cancelled and y shall be taken into custody till conclusion of hearing by trial Court- respondents in Criminal Appeal shall also remain present during hearing of case before trial Court and continue to remain on bail till hearing of case- absence of either of respondents in trial Court shall result in cancellation of his/ bail and he shall be taken into custody till conclusion of hearing by trial Court- In case of conviction of any of accused person sentence already undergone by m as well as period of detention before and during trial shall be set off against period of sentence - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
Dr. ANAND, J.:- These two appeals under S. 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 arise out of a common judgment of the Special Court, Ferozepur dated 19-4-1985. While Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1985 has been filed by Mukhtiar Singh and Jasbir Singh challenging their conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1985 has been filed by the complainant, Sohan Lal and is directed against the acquittal of the acquitted co-accused of Mukhtiar Singh.
2. 11 accused persons were put up for trial before the learned Judge of the Special Court, Ferozepur for offences under Ss. 148, 302/149, 120-BN, 397, 460, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial Court convicted Mukhtiar Singh son of Kartar Singh for offences under Sections 302/34, 397/34, 460, I.P.C. and Section 25, Arms Act and Jasbir Singh for offences under Secs. 302/34, 337/34 and 460., I.P.C. Hazara Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act while Jagrup Singh for offences under Sec. 411, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The remaining accused were acquitted of all the charges.
3. According to the proscecution case, on 10-6-1984 when Sohan Lal, PW 5 father of the deceased Jajpal Singh was watching television along with his other family members, on hearing the firing of 8 or 9 shots, he came out on to the Courtyard and saw two persons standing near his son, Jajpal Singh, deceased,. One of them was armed with a gandassa while the other had a pistol in his hand. The person who was armed with a gandassa in the presence of PW 5, inflicted some injuries on Jajpal Singh while the other person took away the 12 bore DBBL gun belonging to Sohan Lal, PW 5 which was lying near the cot in the Courtyard where Jajpal Singh was sitting. Sohan Lal, PW 5 also noticed some 8 or 10 persons standing at a distance in the darkness. On hearing noise, the assailants as well as the other 8/10 persons ran away. Finding Jajpal Singh in a seriously injured condition, Sohan Lal, PW 5 removed him to the Mission Hospital, Ferozpur. Dr. A.S. Mann, Emergency Medical Officer sent information to the police regarding the arrival of Jajpal Singh in injured condition at the hospital. On receipt of telephonic information, Ratan Singh, SHO, police station Mallanwala proceeded to the hospital. In the meanwhile, it appears Jajpal Singh succumbed to his injuries. Statement of PW 5, Sohan Lal was recorded by Ratan Singh, PW 9 on reaching the hospital and that statement, Ex. P-9, forms the basis of the FIR Ex. P-9/B. After conducting the inquest proceedings and preparing the inquest report, Ex. P-2, the dead body of Jajpal Singh was sent for postmortem examination by SHO RatanSingh, PW 9. Further investigation was taken in hand and the place of occurrence was inspected and its rough site plan prepared. During inspection of the place of occurrence some empties which were found lying the Court yard of the house of PW 5 were collected besides the blood-stained earth. Sealed parcels were prepared of the empties and the blood-stained earth and the same were deposited in the police Malkhana and later sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and Chemical examiner respectively.
4. Dr. Jaspal Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur performed autopsy on the dead body of Jajpal Singh on June 11, 1984 at 10.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:
(i) Incised wound 20 cms x 3 cms x 3 cms at the middle of the frontal region oblique in direction near the hairline with clotted blood present. On dissection the underlying bore was found out completely.Extra dural and subdural haemotoma was present and the brain matter visible.
(ii) Incised wound 14 cms x 2 cms just 2 cms below injury No. 1 with clotted blood and underlying bone cut completely. Extra dural and subdural haemotoma was presento The brain matter was visible.
(iii) Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused margins, dimensions being 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm at the right side of the abdomen in m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
