Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Narender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-1282-SB-2004
Decided On : 10-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent.

The direct connectivity of recovered evidence, such as bullets and firearms, can be a crucial factor in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:
Hostile Witnesses - Criminal Law - IPC, Arms Act - Section 307 of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the statements of hostile witnesses, and the recovery of the pistol and bullet. The court emphasizes the direct connectivity of the recovered bullet to the pistol and concludes that the appellant is guilty based on technical and scientific grounds.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offenses under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act based on an incident where he fired at the complainant over a land dispute. Hostile witnesses and the recovery of the pistol and bullet were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty primarily on the technical and scientific ground of direct connectivity of the bullet recovered from the victim to the pistol recovered from the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence related to the recovery of the pistol and bullet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the direct connectivity of the recovered bullet to the pistol as a key factor in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. - By way of present appeal, appellant - Narender Singh s/o Balu Ram, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2004, passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar (in short, 'Ld. Trial Court'), in Sessions Case No.08 of 2002, dated 05.03.2002, arising from FIR No.313, dated 21.11.2001, under Sections 307 of IPC & 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar.

2. Accused-appellant was held guilty for commission of offences

punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and

was ordered to undergo sentence(s), as detailed in the following table:

Name of Convict	Under Section	Sentence	Fine	In Default
Narender Singh	307 IPC	03 years RI	Rs.5000/-	03 months SI
	25 of Arms Act	01 year RI	Rs. 1000/-	01 month SI

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused appellant, if any, was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence.

3. Case framed up by the prosecution is that on 21.11.2022, a medical ruqa along with MLR of injured Bansi Lal s/o Bal Mukund was received in the Police Station Adampur. SI/SHO Perhalad Singh along with other police officials reached to the Govt. Hospital, Adampur, and there recorded statement of injured Bansi Lal. Said statement as reproduced in the impugned judgment, says as under:-

'Complainant Bansi Lal in his statement Ex.P12 stated that he is an agriculturist by occupation and they are three brothers and the elder brother of the father of the complainant had expired about 20-22 years ago and fields of Narender is adjoining the fields of the complainant and the complainant is having the water turn (Warabandi) first and then after the water turn is that of Narender accused. There is litigation in between the complainant and Narender accused regarding one acre of land. On the fateful day the complainant has called Narender son of Lakhpati Aunt of the complainant for digging the well and the water turn of the complainant was also for the same day from 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. For the last irrigation turn the complainant utilized the water for the turn of Banwari son of Khayali and on the fateful day the complainant gave water of his turn to said Banwari. About 4.00 p.m. the complainant, his brother Atma Ram and Narender son of the aunt of the complainant were present in the field and Narender accused came on a motor cycle and stopped his motor cycle at a distance of one acre and from a distance of 50 yards Narender accused fired in the air with his pistol and after firing in air Narender came near to the complainant and asked the complainant why he has given water turn to Banwari and after saying so the accused Narender fired at the complainant which hit on the left arm. After the firing the complainant and other people present there tried to caught the Narender, but he ran away along with pistol and then after the complainant was shifted to Hospital by Narender son of the Aunt of the complainant and brother of the complainant Atma Ram. On his statement of the complainant the instant case was registered and on completion of the formalities of the investigation, challan was put up in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Hisar for trial of the accused under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act."

4. Subsequently, after committing of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed on 13.03.2002, for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Prosecution examined total 11 witnesses, i.e. Daya Nand MHC (PW1), C. Ram Phal (PW2), Krishan Kumar Reader (PW3), Dr. T.S. Bagri (PW4), Bansi Lal - complainant (PW5), ASI Santa Singh (PW6), Prem Kumar (PW7), Narender Kumar (PW8), Atma Ram (PW9), SI Perhalad Singh (PW10), and HC Sher Singh (PW11).

As documentary evidences, certain statements, recovery memos, and other documents were made available on record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P30.

5. Prime and o