Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1879 (PNJ)

Het Ram v. State Of Haryana

2010-06-29

ARVIND KUMAR

body2010
Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. Both the above referred appeals are being disposed of through this common judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 151-SB of 1999, since the same have been preferred against the judgment dated 27/28.1.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 30 and 25 respectively of the Arms Act. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.6.1996 one Narsi was shot dead by Krishan and others, in relation to which case FIR No. 119 dated 18.6.1996 was registered and during investigation thereof, DBBL gun, used in the murder was recovered from the appellant Krishan on 21.6.1996 and was taken into police possession. The said licensed DBBL gun was found ownership of appellant Het Ram and hence both of them were booked in consequently registered FIR No. 121 dated 21.6.1996 for the offences under Sections 25 and 30 respectively of the Arms Act. 3. After presentation of challan, both of them were charge sheeted under the aforesaid Sections and on conclusion of the trial, both of them were held guilty and sentenced in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Krishan has not touched the merits of the case, but has confined his argument to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant Krishan under the Arms Act may order to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him under Section 302 IPC, wherein life sentence has been awarded to the appellant. 5. Both the FIRs have been arisen out of the same occurrence as the fire arm was used in the murder case and it is also not disputed that transaction constituting the offences are not different. The basic rule of thumb over the year has been the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences and it is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. 6. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the appellant Krishan under the Arms Act shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the murder case, as referred to above. 7. 6. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the appellant Krishan under the Arms Act shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the murder case, as referred to above. 7. So far as appellant Het Ram is concerned, learned counsel has raised the plea of clemency instead of arguing of merits. It has been contended that though he has been found guilty in not preserving his licensed DBBL gun, which later on was used in the commission of murder, but for his this lapse, the appellant has underwent the agony of trial as well as that of appeal for the last about 14 years. That apart, it has been contended that the appellant Het Ram has remained in custody for about 25 days in relation to the present incident. 8. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 30 Arms Act is maintained, however, sentence of the appellant Het Ram is hereby modified and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, within one month undertaking that during the probation period he shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour; shall not commit any offence and in case of any violation on his part, to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so. 9. Both the criminal appeals stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. Copy of this order be placed in Crl. Appeal No. 257-SB of 1999. Appeals disposed of.