Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Rajinder Singh – Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2014
Decided On : 17.12.2014
Arms Act - Section 27 – Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Rigorous imprisonment was imposed – Offence of Murder – Injury - In meantime on hearing noise in street another deceased and father of juvenile also reached there and also started quarreling with alleging that he threatened - Complainants father Mal and his uncle also stated to have joined place of occurrence deceased got treatment at PGIMS, while complainant went to the Civil Hospital where doctor referred him to go to PGIMS - After reaching PGIMS Complainant learnt that his father and uncle, namely died of firearm injuries - It was based on above narration of events FIR came to be registered – Held, In order to find out as to what was the evidence laid before Trial Court to ascertain as to manner in which death of had taken place court find a very nebulous observation made by Trial Court in paragraph of its judgment wherein it is stated to effect that case pleaded by defense that injury on person of could not have been caused if accused was firing in air indiscriminately - Said injury was intentional and that was caused by –accused - It was further stated that reason for causing such injury could have been due to fact that having murdered two persons on asking of Krishna and in fit of anger he might have killed - It was further stated that when two persons were killed by him he apparently wanted to manufacture story of self-defense and with that view he killed his own brother - It must be stated that such a conclusion is highly speculative and we fail to understand how Trial Court could have imagined such a theory without there being any sort of evidence to support said conclusion - On one hand, going by evidence of as well as Exhibit spot at which occurrence had taken place as noted in Exhibit and the evidence himself court find that case pleaded by Appellant could have been manner in which alone whole occurrence had taken place and none else - If said conclusion is inevitable then plea of self-defense pleaded by Appellant has to be necessarily accepted – Consequently court are convinced that since death of had occurred due to firing resorted to as part of his self-defense same would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder which was committed without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and that offender did not take undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner Consequently court are convinced that since death of had occurred due to the firing resorted to as part of his self-defense same would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which was committed without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and that offender did not take undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, which would normally fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, at best, conviction of the Appellant can only be under Part-II of Section 304 Indian Penal Code for which could have been inflicted with a punishment of ten years - For very same reason conviction imposed Under Section 27 of Arms Act cannot also be sustained - It is stated that Appellant is suffering sentence in jail and has so far suffered eleven years - Conviction is modified into one Under Section 304 Part-II and sentence already suffered by Appellant is held to be more than sufficient - Having regard to said factors, holding that sentence already suffered by Appellant is sufficient enough for modified conviction now imposed - Appeal allowed
ORDER :
1. This appeal by way of special leave, at the instance of the sole accused, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 26.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. D-953-DB of 2006 in and by which the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the Trial Court dated 27.10.2006/30.10.2006 in Sessions Case No. 33 of 6.6.2003/11.5.2006 came to be confirmed. The Appellant was convicted for offence punishable Under Section 302 for causing murder of Shri Ram and Suraj Mal. He was also found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 27 of the Arms Act for misusing his licensed gun. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, apart from payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- with the default clause to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence Under Section 27of the Arms Act imprisonment of two years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The co-accused/Jai Bhagwan was acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, other co-accused Neeraj, was also implicated in the crime along with the Appellant and being a juvenile was dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board independently.
2. The case of the prosecution was, on 19.3.2003 at about 6-7 P.M. Sandeep (PW. 10) and the juvenile accused-Neeraj were quarreling after celebrating Holi in the street in front of the house of Suraj Mal, the deceased, is the father of the complainant-Mukesh. Mukesh was examined as PW. 9, who attempted to separate Neeraj and Sandeep but Neeraj kept on abusing consistently. In the meantime, on hearing the noise in the street Krishan, another deceased and the father of juvenile Neeraj and Jai Bhagwan son of Krishan also reached there and also started quarreling with Mukesh (PW. 9) alleging that he threatened Neeraj, son of Krishan. The complainant's father Suraj Mal and his uncle Shri Ram also stated to have joined the place of occurrence.
3. The deceased Krishan called his brother Rajinder Singh, the Appellant herein and asked him to bring his gun as otherwise it would have no use. The Appellant brought his double barrel gun and fired a shot from the corner of the street, which hit Suraj Mal in the chest and the second fire shot hit on the left eye of his uncle Shri Ram. The juvenile Neeraj alleged to have beat the complainant-Mukesh (PW. 9) with a brick on his head. By receiving the assault the complainant stated to have fell down on the ground while Ravinder son of Shri Ram and Guru Dutt son of Narain Dutt arrived at the spot and by the time the whole occurrence have come to an end. It was further alleged by the Complainant (PW. 9) that the Appellant went to his house but kept on firing along with his brother and other family members. One Bhupender stated to have lifted Suraj Mal and Shri Ram. The deceased got treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak while the complainant (PW. 9) went to the Civil Hospital where the doctor referred him to go to PGIMS, Rohtak. After reaching PGIMS, Rohtak, Complainant (PW. 9) learnt that his father and uncle, namely, Suraj Mal and Shri Ram died of firearm injuries. It was based on the above narration of events, the FIR came to be registered on 19.3.2002.
4. On the side of the prosecution PWs. 9 and 10 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. The sketch was drawn by the Investigating Officer-PW. 7 (Exhibit P15). Be that as it may, according to the Appellant on the fateful day i.e. on 19.3.2003 in the evening his nephew Neeraj, the juvenile son of Krishan and Sandeep (PW. 10) after celebrating Holi scuffled with; each other and thereafter when Complainant (PW. 9) intervened, juvenile Neeraj gave a hit on the head of Complainant (PW. 9) with a brick and ran to the house of the Appellant, where other deceased Krishan was also present. It was further alleged that after some time Complainant (PW. 9) came to the house of the Appellant armed with pistol accompanied by Sande
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
