Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1991 (HP)

Harbhajan Singh v. State of H. P.

2015-12-30

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.6.2015, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 42-N/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant-accused, namely Harbhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 20.5.2013, an information was received in the Police Station, Paonta Sahib from Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib that one person was admitted in the hospital with gunshot injury. Rapat Ext. PW- 17/A was recorded to this effect. PW-20 ASI Mohar Singh alongwith other police officials, went to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. The statement of PW-1 Surjeet Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ext. PW-1/A. According to the averments made in the statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C., PW-1 Surjeet Singh used to visit the house of Avtar Singh at Haripur Tohana as he was in good terms with him. On 19.5.2013, he came to the house of Avtar Singh at Haripur Tohana and stayed overnight in his house. On 20.5.2013, he alongwith Kamaljeet Singh went in the orchard at about 11:30 AM. One person, named Ayub Khan (PW-2) was going on his bicycle in front of them. He had taken Mango Orchard from Avtar Singh on contract. Kamaljeet Singh had sold out his bamboo trees. When PW-1 Surjeet Singh reached on the spot, accused Harbhajan Singh was already sitting on another cot armed with gun. Accused was abusing Kamaljeet Singh by saying that the daughter of Kamaljeet Singh had illicit relations and she also eloped. Kamaljeet Singh came on the spot within 5-7 minutes, who asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. Accused threatened Kamaljeet Singh that he would kill him by gun. Thereafter, accused fired upon Kamaljeet Singh on his chest. Kamaljeet Singh collapsed on the spot. Kamaljeet Singh came on the spot within 5-7 minutes, who asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. Accused threatened Kamaljeet Singh that he would kill him by gun. Thereafter, accused fired upon Kamaljeet Singh on his chest. Kamaljeet Singh collapsed on the spot. The accused ran away from the spot and PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan went towards the house of Kamaljeet Singh and informed his family members that accused has fired upon Kamaljeet Singh. Many persons gathered on the spot. Thereafter, Kamaljeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was taken to the hospital at Paonta Sahib. FIR Ext. PW-15/A was registered. The case property was taken into possession, including the gun. The post mortem of deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib by PW-13 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal. The recovery of gun and cartridges was made on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. The investigation was completed and challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which he pleaded not guilty. According to him, he was falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused on 30.6.2015. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 30.6.2015. 5. We have heard the learned Advocates at length and have also gone through the impugned judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1, Surjeet Singh is one of the eye-witnesses. He testified that on 20.5.2013, he alongwith Kamaljeet Singh went in the orchard at about 11:30 AM. When he reached the spot, accused Harbhajan Singh was already sitting on another cot armed with gun. The accused was abusing Kamaljeet (deceased) by saying that the daughter of Kamaljeet had illicit relation with some person and she eloped. Kamaljeet also came on the spot after 5-7 minutes who asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. Accused threatened the deceased that he would kill him with gun. The accused was abusing Kamaljeet (deceased) by saying that the daughter of Kamaljeet had illicit relation with some person and she eloped. Kamaljeet also came on the spot after 5-7 minutes who asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. Accused threatened the deceased that he would kill him with gun. Thereafter, accused fired gunshot upon Kamaljeet on the chest. The deceased collapsed on the spot. He got perplexed and accused left the spot. Thereafter, he went to the house of Kamaljeet and informed the family members of deceased. Many persons gathered on the spot. His statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when Kamaljeet came on the spot after checking the bamboo trees, only thereafter, the accused started abusing Kamaljeet. The accused fired at Kamaljeet after 3-4 minutes of abusing. He along with the wife and daughter of Kamaljeet (deceased) came back on the spot. Many persons had already assembled on the spot. 7. PW-2 Ayub Khan, is also the eye-witness to the incident. According to him, he was taking meals nearby the traditional fire oven. PW-1 Surjeet Singh came there. Accused started saying that the daughter of Kamaljeet has eloped. Kamaljeet also reached on the spot who asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. The accused threatened Kamaljeet that he would kill him with gun. Thereafter, accused fired gun shot on Kamaljeet on his chest. Kamaljeet collapsed on the ground. He along with PW-1 Surjeet Singh left the spot and went to the house of deceased and informed his wife of the incident that accused had fired on Kamaljeet. The wife and daughter of Kamaljeet came on the spot. They both came back in the garden. Many persons had gathered there. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they all i.e. daughter and wife of Kamaljeet, PW-1 Surjeet Singh and he came on the spot together. He has denied the suggestion that Surjeet Singh has not visited the garden on 20.5.2013. 8. PW-3 Ms. Satwinder Kaur is the daughter of the deceased. She has testified that at about 11:30 AM, Surjeet Singh and Ayub Khan came to their house from the Mango garden. They told them that accused had fired upon her father Kamaljeet Singh. She along with her mother rushed to the Mango garden. 8. PW-3 Ms. Satwinder Kaur is the daughter of the deceased. She has testified that at about 11:30 AM, Surjeet Singh and Ayub Khan came to their house from the Mango garden. They told them that accused had fired upon her father Kamaljeet Singh. She along with her mother rushed to the Mango garden. She saw accused Harbhajan Singh armed with gun. He was going towards his house. She asked the accused as to why he fired upon her father. He replied that he has done whatever he wanted to do. She reached on the spot and saw that her father was lying on the ground. 9. PW-4 Jaspal Singh deposed that the accused made disclosure statement about the gun vide Ext. PW-4/A. He signed the memo Ext. PW-4/A. The gun was recovered at the instance of the accused from his house. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-4/B. He identified gun Ext. P-14 and empty cartridge Ext. P-15. In his crossexamination, he deposed that when the police along with the accused reached the house of the accused, the accused pointed towards the cot and told that the gun was lying under the cot. Thereafter, the gun was taken into possession from the house of the accused. 10. PW-6 Smt. Santosh, Sr. Asstt., SDM Office, Paonta Sahib, deposed that as per the record at Sr. No. 144 dated 8.2.1986, the gun licence was issued in the name of Harbhajan Singh and thereafter renewed on 26.12.2012 upto 31.12.2015. The entry in Ext. PW-6/A was correct as per the original record produced by her in the Court. 11. PW-7 Shakeel Ahmad deposed that on 5.3.2013, accused had purchased five live cartridges KF-12 bore. He made entry in the relevant Register at Sr. No. 18. 12. PW-8 Mewa Singh deposed that on 20.5.2013 at about 11:30 AM, he was at his house and he heard noise of a gunshot. He received call on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of Kamaljeet. He reached the garden. He saw Kamaljeet lying on the ground. PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan were also present on the spot along with other persons. 13. PW-13 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal has conducted the post mortem examination and the report is Ext. PW-13/B. According to him, the deceased died due to gunshot injury causing excessive hemorrhage due to laceration of right lung and consequent shock and death. PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan were also present on the spot along with other persons. 13. PW-13 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal has conducted the post mortem examination and the report is Ext. PW-13/B. According to him, the deceased died due to gunshot injury causing excessive hemorrhage due to laceration of right lung and consequent shock and death. The shot was fired from a close range probably. 14. PW-20 ASI Mohar Singh is the Investigating Officer in the case. He reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 Surjeet Singh vide Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The case property was taken into possession, including control sample of the soil from the spot. The accused made the disclosure statement vide Ext. PW-4/A, on the basis of which gun and cartridge were taken into possession. 15. The prosecution has proved the case against the accused to the hilt. PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan are the eye-witnesses. According to them, the accused was abusing Kamaljeet (deceased) in the garden. The deceased asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and his family members. Thereafter, accused fired at Kamaljeet. He collapsed on the spot. PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan informed the family members. The family members came to the spot. 16. PW-3 Satwinder Kaur has also supported the version of PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan. She also saw accused armed with gun. He was going towards his house. She asked accused Harbhajan Singh as to why he fired gunshot at his father. The accused told her that he has done whatever he intended to do. The gun and cartridge were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused made vide Ext. PW-4/A. It was duly proved by PW-4 Jaspal Singh. The gun licence was issued in the name of the accused. It was recorded at Sr. No. 144 on dated 8.2.1986. The same was renewed on 26.12.2012 upto 31.12.2015. PW-7 Shakeel Ahmad has deposed that on 5.3.2013, the accused had purchased five live cartridges KF-12 bore. He made entry in the relevant Register at Sr. No. 18. 17. PW-8 Mewa Singh has carried deceased to Paonta Sahib hospital. Kamaljeet was declared dead by the M.O at Paonta Sahib hospital. PW-13 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal has conducted the post mortem examination and the report is Ext. He made entry in the relevant Register at Sr. No. 18. 17. PW-8 Mewa Singh has carried deceased to Paonta Sahib hospital. Kamaljeet was declared dead by the M.O at Paonta Sahib hospital. PW-13 Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal has conducted the post mortem examination and the report is Ext. PW-13/B. According to him, the deceased died due to gunshot injury causing excessive hemorrhage due to laceration of right lung and consequent shock and death. The shot was probably fired from a close range. 18. According to the FSL report Ext. PW-20/L, the gunshot hole on Ext. E/1a (shirt) was caused by shot gun and the range of firing was about 2 meter. The soil in Ext. E/5 was found similar to the soil in Ext. E/6 (control sample soil). The Ext. E/7a was a Single Barrel Breech Loading (SBBL) gun and was found to be in working order. The barrel of the firearm bore evidence of recent firing. The cartridge case in Ext. E/7b was fired from firearm Ext. E/7a. The pellets in Ext. E/3 were fired pellets generally used in 12 bore ammunition. 19. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate for the accused that the accused was not present on the spot. PW-1 Surjeet Singh and PW-2 Ayub Khan are the eye-witnesses of the incident. They have seen the accused firing on Kamaljeet Singh (deceased). The deceased died due to excessive loss of blood. Ext. E/7a (gun) was found to be in working condition and the barrel of firearm bore the evidence of recent firing, as discussed hereinabove, vide Ext. PW-20/L, FSL report. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 30.6.2015. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.