Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 920 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh Alias Bau v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-13

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment 1. This Crl. Appeal has been filed by Shri Ranjit Singh alias Bau son of Karnail Singh, resident of village Killa Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. This very appellant was also involved in a murder case bearing FIR No. 253 registered on 4.9.1997 in Police-Station Patti, under Section 302, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act regarding the murder of Kashmir Singh and also for causing injuries to Joginder Singh. In the main case, it was alleged that Shri Ranjit Singh present appellant was carrying a double barrel gun and he used the same for unlawful purpose for committing the murder of Shri Kashmir Singh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Ranjit Singh appellant was wanted in the main murder case referred to above and he was arrested by the Thanedar Shri Rachhpal Singh and was interrogated about the weapon of offence on 14.9.1997 and on interrogation he made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one 12 bore gun in the heap of Toori lying in his varandah in his residential house and he offered to get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex. PA was recorded and in pursuant of the same the accused got recovered gun Ex. P.1 from the disclosed place along with four live cartridges of the same bore Exs. P.2 Ex. P.S. The gun was dismantled into three parts and thereafter the gun and the cartridges were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB after making it into a parcel duly seated with the seal mark RS. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Amarjit Singh. S.I. Rachhpal Singh prepared rough site plan Ex. PC of the place of recovery and arrested the accused in this case. The case property was deposited by S.I. Rachhpal Singh with the MHC with seals intact. Sanction of the District Magistrate Ex. PD for prosecution of the accused was obtained and after completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. As the main case was committed to the Court of Session, resultantly the case under the Arms Act, was also committed to the Court of Session. 3. The charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was framed against the appellant which was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. As the main case was committed to the Court of Session, resultantly the case under the Arms Act, was also committed to the Court of Session. 3. The charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was framed against the appellant which was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Milkha Singh PW-1 and Investigating Officer S.I. Rachhpal Singh as PW-2. Finally, the prosecution tendered in evidence sanction Ex. PD from the District Magistrate as required under Section 30 of the Arms Act. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied those circumstances and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the gun and the cartridges have been illegally planted on him. 6. When called upon to tender into defence, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence and closed his case. 7. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 8. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the present appeal. 9. We have heard Shri Ashok Sharma Nabhewala appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.S. Randhawa, learned DAG, Punjab, assisted by Shri A.S. Sandhu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 10. PW-1 Shri Milkha Singh while appearing as PW-1 categorically deposed that on 14.9.1997 he was associated by S.I. Rachhpal Singh and in his presence Ranjit Singh appellant was interrogated about the weapon of offence and on interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed a .12 bore gun after breaking the same in a gunny bag in the varandah in the toori lying in the house along with four live cartridges and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement Ex. PA was recorded which was thumb-marked by the accused and was attested by him. Thereafter, the accused then led the police party to the specified place and got recovered gun Ex. P.1 along with four live cartridges of .12 bore. Two cartridges produced in the Court are Exs. His disclosure statement Ex. PA was recorded which was thumb-marked by the accused and was attested by him. Thereafter, the accused then led the police party to the specified place and got recovered gun Ex. P.1 along with four live cartridges of .12 bore. Two cartridges produced in the Court are Exs. P.2 and Ex. P.3. and two live cartridges have not been produced in the Court by the prosecution. It was also deposed by the witness that the gun and the cartridges were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB attested by him. 11. Shri Rachhpal Singh, S.I. SHO also stated that the accused was arrested by him in the main murder case on 13.9.1997 was interrogated on 14.9.1997 and on interrogation this accused disclosed that he had kept concealed 12 bore gun in the heap of Toori lying in the varandah of his residential house and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded and in token of its correctness the accused thumb- marked the same and it was attested by ASI Amarjit Singh. The accused then led the police party to the specified place and got recovered gun Ex. P.1 along with four live cartridges of the same bore Ex. P.2 to Ex. P.5. The gun was dismantled into three parts. The aforesaid gun and the cartridges were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB attested by witnesses and after sealing the same into parcel with the seal mark RS, seal was handed over to ASI Amarjit Singh. The Thanedar further deposed that he prepared rough site plan Ex. PC of the place of recovery. The accused was also arrested formally in the present case under the Arms Act and on return to the police-station he deposited the case property with seals intact with the MHC. He further obtained the sanction Ex. PD from the District Magistrate and the accused was challaned. 12. Thus, from the combined statements of Rachhpal Singh PW-2 and Shri Milkha Singh PW-1, it is established on the record that the broken gun and the live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the appellant and he had no licence. He further obtained the sanction Ex. PD from the District Magistrate and the accused was challaned. 12. Thus, from the combined statements of Rachhpal Singh PW-2 and Shri Milkha Singh PW-1, it is established on the record that the broken gun and the live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the appellant and he had no licence. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Shri Milkha Singh looks to be improbable witness because his village is at a distance of 13/14 kms from the police-station and he also does not know on which date the appellant was arrested by the Thanedar. It was also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are residential houses near the Police Station but the Investigation Officer has not taken any steps to associate any person from those houses. The submission of the learned counsel of the appellant cannot be accepted. Simply for the reasons that the house of the witness is at a distance of 13/14 kms from the police station is no ground to reject his testimony. The suggestion which has been put to this witness that he is related with the deceased is no ground to reject his testimony. Rather it proves the case of the prosecution because Milkha Singh must have gone to the Police Station on coming to know that accused has been arrested by the police and, therefore, what progress the police is making in the investigation. In these circumstances, the presence of Milkha Singh in the police station on 14.9.97 is very probable. So far as the statement of Rachhpal Singh is concerned, the only suggestion which has been put to this witness was that the gun has been planted upon Ranjit Singh just to lend corroboration to the murder case. This suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted firstly because as per the version of the FIR of the main case Shri Ranjit Singh was allegedly carrying a double barrel gun and he used the same for causing the injuries to Kashmir Singh. Furthermore, it is not believable that costly article like gun shall be planted by Rachhpal Singh SHO. Thirdly, as per the version of the case, the present appellant Shri Ranjit Singh was allegedly carrying a gun, therefore, in all probabilities, he must have produced weapon of offence on 14.9.1997. Furthermore, it is not believable that costly article like gun shall be planted by Rachhpal Singh SHO. Thirdly, as per the version of the case, the present appellant Shri Ranjit Singh was allegedly carrying a gun, therefore, in all probabilities, he must have produced weapon of offence on 14.9.1997. Moreover, the main offence was allegedly committed on 4.9.1997 as per the copy of the FIR placed on the record. Relying upon the statement of Milkha Singh and Rachhpal Singh, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and dismiss the appeal. 13. Before we part with this judgment, we may also make a mention that vide our separate judgment of even date, we have dismissed the appeal of S/Shri Ranjit Singh, Partap Singh, Nirmal Singh and Narinjan Singh who were convicted and sentenced for committing the murder of Kashmir Singh and also for causing injuries to Joginder Singh. We have given the benefit of doubt to Smt. Kashmiro alias Satto who also one of the co-accused with the present appellant and his companions in the main murder case.