Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 148
2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1686 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.56-DB of 2007
Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 31/01/2012}
Present:Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, appellant in Crl.Appeal No.56-DB of 2007.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners in Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, respondent, in Crl.Appeals No.498-DBA of 2007 and 1112-SBA of 2007 and Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007 Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondents Paramjit Singh @ Pammi and Parveen Kumar in Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007.
Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for respondent Pawan Kumar in Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007.
Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Addl.AG, Punjab.
Murder--Gun Shot injury--Accused provoked the incident--Not a case which could be said to have occurred at spur of moment.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 & 304--Murder--Gun Shot injury--Accused a Police Inspector, stopped deceased who was passing a path in front of his house and on persistence by him and co-accused, exchange of hot words took place and in that accused fired with firearm on head of deceased--Held, Not a case which could be said to have occurred at spur of moment--Accused provoked the incident--Conviction u/s 302 upheld--Arms Act, S.27.
The appellant had caused firearm injury hitting deceased on his head--The appellant along with the other accused had parked their cars in front of his house and were drinking liquor near their cars and when deceased was passing through open street to go to Temple, he was stopped by appellant and others--On their persistence, exchange of hot words took place and in that, the appellant fired with the firearm which is a .38 bore revolver on the person deceased on his head, which resulted in his death it is not a case which could be said to have occurred at the spur of moment--Therefore, appellant having provoked the incident it cannot be said the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the case is one which would fall within the parameters of Section 304 Part-II IPC. (Para 90)
Mr. Jora Singh, J.: - By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal No.56-DB of 2007 (Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky vs. State of Punjab), Crl. Appeal No.498-DBA of 2007 (State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others), Crl. Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007 (State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others), Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others), Crl. Revision No.295 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others), as the same have been preferred against the common judgment of conviction dated 30.9.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, in Sessions Case No.47 of 2001/2006, arising out of FIR No.10 dated 8.1.2001 under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.
2. By the said judgment, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC and undergo RI for three years and pay a fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine or a part thereof, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
4. Iqbal Singh, Simarjit Singh and Satbir Pal Singh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them after recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short).
5. Crl.Appeal No.498-DBA has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of accused Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 IPC, whereas Crl.Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007 has been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill under the Arms Act.
6. Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006 is preferred by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the order dated 28.9.2006 vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
7. Crl.Revision No.295 of 2007 is preferred by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
8. Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007 is filed by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 IPC.
9. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2001, SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, received a message on telephone from the Incharge, New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, that Avtar Singh and his father Amrik Singh were admitted with firearm injuries in New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and proceedings may be initiated by sending an Investigating Officer. On receipt of the message, Santokh Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, along with ASI Jaspal Singh, ASI Sukhwinder Singh, HC Harsukhdev Pal Singh and SPO Hardyal Singh in a private vehicle reached New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, for conducting proceedings. An application was moved asking the doctor as to whether Avtar Singh injured was fit to make a statement. The doctor opined that Avtar Singh was unfit to make a statement, however, Amrik Singh injured was declared fit to make a statement. Then statement of Amrik Singh injured was recorded by Inspector Santokh Singh on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2001 at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. A
