The court emphasized the importance of carefully scrutinizing evidence in cases involving delay in lodging the first information report and non-examination of crucial witnesses.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 25.01.1996, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, it convicted the accused/appellant, and sentenced him, as under;-

Name of the accused (now appellant)

Offence for which convicted

Sentence awarded

1

2

3

Jagtar Singh

(a) Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. land to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/-. and. in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(b) Under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

Both the substantive sentences, were however, ordered to run concurrently,

2 The case of the prosecution proceeded, in the manner, that on 28.08.1989, at about 3.30 P.M., Jagtar Singh, accused, was on security duty, as an S.P.O. aiongwith other Police Officials, on the chubara of the house of Savinder Singh. Sarpanch, r/o village Dargapur, as there was apprehension of danger, to his life, at the hands of terrorists. The complainant aiongwith his family, being the brother of Savinder Singh, was also residing in that house. Jagtar Singh, started playing a cassette of obscene and vulgar songs, on the tape- recorder, as a result whereof. Satnam Singh, complainant, and his brother Savinder Singh, objected to it. The accused, was, however, obstinate, in doing so. When Satnam Singh, went up-stairs, to prevent the accused from playing obscene and vulgar songs, on the tape-recorder, Jagtar Singh, accused, fired two shots, from his service rifle. The first shot missed, but the second one hit Satnam Singh, on the knee joint of his left leg, as a result whereof, his left leg, from the knee joint, had to be amputated. The accused then ran away after getting down from the staircase. Surinder Singh, Sarpanch, real brother of Satnam Singh, then carried him to Military Hospital, where, he was medically examined by Dr. Tak, on 28.08.1989. Dr. Tak, mentioned, in the medico-legal report, that Satnam Singh, injured, had suffered gun shot wound, on the left left leg. He found the following injuries, on his person :-

(i) Gun shot wound left leg upper l/3rd width loss of upper.

(ii) 1/3rd of tibia and fibula just below the femoral condyle.

3. After receiving intimation, regarding the aforesaid incident, in the Police Station, Shamir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, went to the Military Hospital, and moved an application PB, whereupon, the doctor, declared Satnam Singh, to be fit, to make a statement. Accordingly, Shamir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, recorded the statement exhibit PA of Satnam Singh, containing the aforesaid facts, and after making endorsement exhibit PA/1, he sent it, to the Police Station, where formal first information report, was recorded, by Bikramjit Singh, Head Constable. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, went to the spot, and prepared rough site plan PC. Birja Singh, S.P.O., produced rifle exhibit P1, two empty cartridges exhibits P2 and P3, and 48 live cartridges exhibits P4 to P51, which were sealed with the seal bearing impression SS, and taken into possession, vide recovery memo exhibit PD. After recording the statement of witnesses, the accused, was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused, was challaned.

4. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and 27 of the Arms Act, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sa