Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Manoj @ Panu
Versus
State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 2063 of 2013 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7707 of 2013)
Decided On : 09-12-2013
Held: We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The ground on which the appellant was awarded the sentence which was to run consecutively was due to the previous criminal record of the appellant for a similar type of offence of shooting in the court premises, which charge was proved as per Ex. P-1. This is the basis on which the trial court considered the extenuating circumstances into consideration to impose punishment for offences committed by the appellant, sentencing him to different periods for each one of the offences committed by him. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, and the same was upheld by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid legal position laid down by this Court regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences, the sentences imposed upon the appellant for different offences to run consecutively under the IPC and the Arms Act, are erroneous in law, as the same are contrary to law laid down by this Court as per the cases referred to supra upon which reliance has been rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant.
Further, having regard to the age of the appellant at the time of committing the offences, we feel it would not be just and proper to allow the sentences to run consecutively. As the offences committed by the appellant have been committed under a single transaction, it is well settled position of law that the sentences must run concurrently and not consecutively.
Hence, the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for in this case and the sentences are modified to run concurrently and not consecutively and for this reason, we hold that the sentence must be reduced to 10 years in total with regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, as also keeping in view the tender age of the appellant on the date of the offence.
The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms by modifying the judgment of the High Court, by reducing the sentence to 10 years in total, the remainder of which he must serve.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Leave granted. The application for bail is rejected.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant Manoj against the final judgment and order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1357-SB of 2007 whereby the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani in Sessions Case No. 21-RBT of 2006 dated 23.04.2007 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced the appellant-Manoj as under:-
The sentences were ordered to run consecutively in terms of Section 31 of Cr.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2005, when Satender (PW-7), with other accused persons in some other case, was being taken to judicial lock-up by the complainant-Head Constable Ram Kishan (PW-11) after producing him in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, a voice was heard saying Manoj, Anil is going, shoot him Thereafter, a boy shot Satender from the back side and the shot hit Satender on his right thigh. The assailants were chased and the person who had fired the shot was allegedly apprehended at the spot with a pistol. On inquiry, his name was disclosed as Manoj @ Panu. On the basis of the statement of Head Constable Ram Kishan the PW-11, FIR No. 136 of 2005 for offences under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. During investigation, it was found that it was a case of mistaken identity as Satender (PW-7) was shot in place of one Anil. The injured Satender was sent for treatment at Government Hospital, Bhiwani. After preliminary treatment, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.
4. On 23.08.2005 the injured Satender gave his statement (Exh. DA) stating that on 10.08.2005 he was brought to the District Court, Bhiwani as under trial in the murder case of one Ramesh Masta. After his attendance in the court he was heading towards judicial lock-up with PW-11. On reaching the gate of the court PW-11 saw Pawan Masta alias Munna S/o Ramesh Masta and Rohtash Sharma (father-in-law of Ramesh Masta) and a boy who was standing in front of them. All the above three pointed towards Satender saying he is the same boy. On this, the fourth boy present with them fired three shots at Satender (PW-7). Thereafter, all the three raised fingers and asked if result is seen, Mnjam dekh lia?”
5. The co-accused Sudhir was arrested by the police on 31.8.2005. On 30.10.2005 the charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Bhiwani issued sanction order on 31.10.2005 under Section 39 of the Arms Act pertaining to a pistol of .315 bore. It was also noted in the sanction order that the said pistol was recovered from the appellant. On 14.12.2005, the matter was committed for trial to the court of the Sessions Judge. The prosecution listed 28 witnesses to be examined against the appellant. However, the prosecution examined only 13 witnesses dropping 15 witnesses.
6. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and acquitted all the other accused persons. The Sessions Judge held that from every angle, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, and that he has fired two shots at Satender with the intent of committing murder and as for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, it was observed that it has been sufficiently proved on record that the accused Manoj was apprehended on the spot with a pistol along with 4 live cartridges. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.4.2007 passed the order of sentence and the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307, IPC and
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
