Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Darshan Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S No. 219 of 2004
Decided On : 30-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Balram Singh
For the Respondent: M.S. Bajwa

The appellate court upheld the convictions under IPC, emphasizing that immediate witness accounts validated the prosecution's case and moderated sentences considering time already served.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 379, 34 - Conviction for attempted murder and robbery - Respondents convicted and sentenced for seven years RI for Section 307 and two years for Section 379. Court finds sufficient evidence for conviction and upholds trial court's judgment, reducing sentence considering duration already served and absence of prior criminal record. (Paras 1, 15, 17)

(B) Criminal Law - Appellate Review - The appellate court's role is not to interfere unless the trial court's decision is perverse or based on misapprehension of evidence; the appeal was partly allowed concerning the sentence leniency. (Paras 11, 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from conviction under IPC sections for the shooting of Paramdeep Singh, where multiple injuries were inflicted and property was taken. The incident involved lalkara by the assailants against the complainant.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction is affirmed with modifications to the sentence based on the length of pre-existing imprisonment and the nature of injuries inflicted.

Issues: Was there sufficient evidence to uphold convictions, and was the sentence proportionate?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that immediate and consistent testimony supports the prosecution's case, validating the original conviction despite defense claims of false implication.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; sentences modified to time served.

Table of Content
1. description of the case and initial appeal. (Para 1)
2. representation during the appeal. (Para 2)
3. details of the incident and injuries caused. (Para 3 , 4 , 6)
4. medical evidence and examinations. (Para 5 , 9)
5. accused’s defense and denials. (Para 10)
6. arguments made by both parties. (Para 11 , 12)
7. court observations on the timeline of events. (Para 13 , 14)
8. motive established by the prosecution. (Para 15)
9. consideration of sentence duration. (Para 16)
10. modification of the sentence. (Para 17)
11. conclusion and procedural wrap-up. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2003, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, whereby the respondents No.2 to 5 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 /379/34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 07 years each for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, along with default stipulation and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 02 years each for an offence punishable under Section 379 /34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, along with default stipulation, whereby the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

2. During the pendency of the present appeal, Darshan Singh, appellant No.1 had expired. Since the learned counsel for the appellants were not appearing, Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on receipt of the information regarding the admission of Paramdeep Singh son of Gurjit Singh, SI Harpal Singh and other police officials reached CMC, Ludhiana and obtained the opinion with regard to the fitness of the Paramdeep Singh. Since he was declared unfit to make the statement, the statement of Gurjit Singh, his father was recorded. As per Gurjit Singh, complainant, on 07.08.2001 he along with Baldev Singh son of Nazir Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Bachan Singh were present at Water Works, Ward No.12 and waiting for their partner Ranjit Singh son of Gurbachan Singh for taking accounts of their Mini Bus. At that time the complainant was having his .12 bore single barrel gun with him. In the meantime, Paramdeep Singh @ Mammu, the son of the complainant came on his scooter to call him back to the house. At that time, a big mercury bulb was on in the street and electric tube was also on, on the room of Water Works. At about 08:00 PM when the complainant along with his son Paramdeep Singh was to leave for his home on the scooter of his son, Darshan Singh @ Badal son of Sudagar Singh armed with .12 bore gun with his son Lakhbir Singh came there on a motorcycle along with his real brother Amarjit Singh @ Tholu with Jaswant Singh@ Jassa sitting behind him on pillion of different scooter which was driven by Amarjit Singh. Darshan Singh @ Badal raised lalkara that the complainant should not be spared and lesson be taught to him for getting a case registered against them by giving secret information. In the meantime said Darshan Singh @ Badal fired a shot from his .12 bore gun towards Paramdeep Singh which hit him on the upper part of his left arm besides his chest near the armpit. As as result of it, Paramdeep Singh fell down from his scooter. Darshan Singh and his son Lakhbir Singh started giving slaps and fist blows to the complainant. Lakhbir Singh snatched the licensed gun of the complainant. Jaswant Singh @ Jassa picked up a chair lying on the spot and hit the same on Baldev Singh. As a result of which Baldev Singh sustained injury on his head and fell down on the ground. Amarjit Singh @ Tholu picked up another chair and hit the same on the head of Mohinder Singh, who was on Government duty at that time. He(complainant) raised hue and cry and all the accused escaped from the place on their