Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 410 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh @ Satta v. State of Punjab

2012-03-02

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
Vijender Singh Malik, J.;— Satnam Singh @ Satta, appellant has brought this appeal against the judgment of his conviction dated 09.07.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and the order on sentence of the same date vide which he has been sentenced to undergo the following punishments, which were ordered to run concurrently:- The offence for which conviction was recorded. Sentence awarded 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months . 394 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months . 25 Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.09.1996 at about 6.25 PM, Jasbir Singh, complainant was sitting in the office of petrol pump. Two salesmen Sham Lal and Khem Chand Giri were filling petrol and diesel in the vehicles at that time. In the meanwhile, a Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No.PB-11-A-6229 came there at the petrol pump. Three young boys came to the petrol pump on the said scooter. They got petrol filled in the scooter and then demanded the cash bag from Sham Lal. When Sham Lal refused to give the cash bag to them, one of those boys took out a pistol and placed the same at the temple of Sham Lal. He then tried to snatch the cash bag. Other salesman named Khem Chand Giri saw this and came forward in support of Sham Lal. This led to a scuffle. At this, the person wielding pistol, fired a shot therefrom, which hit the shoulder of Sham Lal. The other two men, who were having knives, caused injuries to Khem Chand Giri and Sohan Singh, truck driver of the petrol pump and Amrik Singh domestic servant employed with the complainant, who were present at the petrol pump and had been attracted to the spot by the commotion. They were also given blows with knives by the two persons having them. Attracted by the occurrence, the complainant also came out of the office and raised alarm. They were also given blows with knives by the two persons having them. Attracted by the occurrence, the complainant also came out of the office and raised alarm. A number of persons had collected at the spot hearing the sound of gunshot. They started throwing bricks and stones on the robbers. Two young boys, who were wielding knives succeeded in escaping from the spot while the one having pistol was overpowered. The police came to the spot in the meanwhile and took the injured to the hospital. The person, who was overpowered at the spot was found to be Satnam Singh. The pistol, which was recovered from the possession of Satnam Singh, was unloaded and was found having three live cartridges in the same. A rough sketch of the pistol was prepared. He disclosed the name of his accomplices as Nirmal Singh and Dilbag Singh. The statement of the complainant Jasbir Singh was recorded by the police. It was sent to the police station, on which the case was registered. At Civil Hospital, Nakodar, Dr. Tarsem Singh medicolegally examined Sohan Singh, Sham Lal, Malkiat Singh and Khem Giri. He also examined the appellant Satnam Singh. Injury no.2 of Satnam Singh was declared grievous. All other injuries of the appellant as well as of the victims were declared simple in nature. Satnam Singh was arrested and on his statement, the other accused were also arrested. Knives from them were also recovered. Charge was framed against all the three accused for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of the trial, Dilbag Singh one of the accused died. Another accused named Nirmal Singh had absented himself from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial was completed against Satnam Singh alias Satta, in which 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused Satnam Singh alias Satta was examined thereafter in terms of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had denied truth of the prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. He had claimed himself to have been falsely implicated. The accused Satnam Singh alias Satta was examined thereafter in terms of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had denied truth of the prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. He had claimed himself to have been falsely implicated. According to him, there was a dispute between him and the petrol pump owners as he had got repaired the truck of the owners of the petrol pump and when he demanded the costs of repairs, he was falsely implicated in this case. Hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has found Satnam Singh, appellant guilty of committing the offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, vide judgment dated 09.07.2001. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given on the same date and the sentence detailed as above was awarded to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of his conviction and order on sentence, Satnam Singh @ Satta, appellant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. I have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant did not question the validity or legality of the judgment of conviction of the appellant. He expressed no objection if the said judgment was upheld. He has made submission on the aspect of sentence awarded to the appellant by learned trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the custody certificate submitted by learned State counsel today, the appellant Satnam Singh @ Satta has already undergone the sentence of 04 years 09 months and 12 days till the date of his release on bail in this case. He has submitted that the substantive sentence awarded to him for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and for the offence punishable under section 394 IPC it is rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act it is rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year . He has submitted that the appellant had been a young man of the age of 23 years at the time of occurrence. He has submitted that the appellant had been a young man of the age of 23 years at the time of occurrence. According to him, he was released on bail in this case on 31.10.2001 and thereafter more than 10 years have passed. He is not shown to have involved himself in any criminal activity thereafter. According to him, keeping in view the antecedents, age, activities of the appellant after being released on bail in this case and the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than 15 years back, the sentence already undergone by him may be treated as sufficient for the offence. Learned State counsel had nothing to dispute the factual submissions made in this regard. He has rather admitted that the appellant has not involved himself in any unlawful activity after being released on bail in this case. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was 23 years old when the offence was committed, he has suffered a lot during the pendency of the trial and the appeal for the last more than 10 years and that he has already undergone sentence for about 4 years, 09 months and 12 days, I find the period undergone by him in custody in this case to be sufficient punishment to him. Consequently, I partly accept the appeal and reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the one already undergone by him.