Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
Bhupinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 1181 of 2013, 329 of 2014, 108 of 2015
Decided On : 03-07-2019
B.S. Sewak, Adv., Ripudaman Singh Sidhu, Adv., Vikram Satpal Anand, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of strong evidence, including witness testimonies, forensic reports, and recovery of stolen items, in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 398, 401, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Arms Act - 25
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for various offences including possession of arms and ammunition, looting, and firing at the police during an attempted arrest. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused's involvement in multiple criminal activities, including theft and possession of stolen weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, recovery of stolen items, and forensic reports. The court upheld the judgment of conviction and maintained the sentences for most offences, while reducing the sentences for two specific provisions.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the appellants' involvement in criminal activities, their attempted evasion of arrest, and the use of firearms against the police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, forensic reports, and recovery of stolen items to establish the guilt of the appellants. The evidence presented by the prosecution was crucial in proving the accused's involvement in the criminal activities.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of conviction and maintained the sentences for most offences, while reducing the sentences for two specific provisions. The modified sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence vide judgment and order dated 05/08.08.2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Sessions case No.188 of 2012 whereby they along with Sunil Kumar @ Raja, Naveen Kumar @ Monu, Jai Pal alias Manjit Singh and Chandan @ Chandu were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 307, 398, 401, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the three appellants (Rajiv Kumar, Ramandeep Singh and Bhupender Singh) were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Offence u/s | Sentence |
| 307 read with Section 34 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs.5000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. |
| 398 IPC. | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs.5000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months |
| 401 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay fine of Rs.3000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. |
| 411 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.3000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. |
| 420 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.3000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. |
| 467 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. |
| 468 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.3000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. |
| 471 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. |
| 25 of the Arms Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs.5000/-, each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Naveen Kumar was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Sunil Kumar alias Raja confessed his crime and was sentenced on 14.12.2011 to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Accused Chandan alias Chandu and Jai Pal alias Manjit Singh absconded during trial. Chandan was declared proclaimed offender on 27.4.2013 and Jai Pal alias Manjit Singh on 7.7.2013.
3. Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-1181-DB of 2013 has been filed by Bhupinder Singh, CRA-D-329-DB of 2014 by Rajiv Kumar and CRAD-108-DB of 2015 by Ramandeep Singh.
4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on the night intervening 5/6.6.2009 at around 11.30 PM Inspector Rajesh Kumar along with ASI Rajbir Singh and other police personnel was present near Partap Garh turning on GT Road in a Govt. vehicle No.HR-01M-8376 for patrolling. Secret information was received to the effect that Rajiv resident of Ludhiana, his fema
