Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 385 (JK)

Harpreet Singh v. State of J&K

2021-07-30

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, PUNEET GUPTA

body2021
ORDER : Puneet Gupta, J.- IA No.01/2017 in CRA No.43/2017 & IA No.01/2017 in CRA No.44/2017 1. The Criminal Appeal No. 43/2017 and Criminal Appeal No. 44/2017 are filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 12.12.2017. The applications filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in both the appeals are, therefore, taken up together for consideration. The appellants, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh alias Parveen and Gurdeep Singh, have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they are to further undergo imprisonment of the like nature for a period of one year. The appellant, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 RPC and fine of Rs.50,000/-. He is also convicted for commission of offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is also to undergo further imprisonment as mentioned in the order of sentence. The trial court has also convicted the two other accused in the case for offence under Section 302 RPC and separate appeals have been filed by them. 2. The objections to the applications stand filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-convicts has also filed brief synopsis in support of his arguments. The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments has mainly referred to the statements of the eye witnesses in the case who are close relations of the deceased, Harpreet Singh alias Babbi. The learned counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses to the occurrence though closely related to the deceased person. The conduct of the said eye witnesses is unnatural and their statements do not, therefore, inspire confidence. The other argument is that the statements of these eye witnesses have been recorded long after the alleged occurrence and there is no plausible explanation for the same. Lastly it is argued that the names of the appellants do not figure in the FIR. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Lastly it is argued that the names of the appellants do not figure in the FIR. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that the judgment is well reasoned and the trial court has taken care of all the aspects of the case while deciding the case. No case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants herein. 5. FIR No. 160/2009 came to be registered with Police Station, Satwari under Section 302 RPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act on the information received through reliable sources that one Harpreet Singh has been shot dead on the intervening night of 26/27 November, 2009 by some person/persons and the dead body is lying on the road at Rani Bagh near Mahindra Body Builders Workshop. The report was initially filed with the Police Post on the said information and thereafter the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged with the concerned Police Station. The applicants herein along with two other appellants Gurdev Singh and Ravinder Singh are alleged to have killed the victim after the victim was dragged from the auto. The appellant, Harpreet Singh, is alleged to have fired the shots upon the victim which resulted into the death of the victim. The assailants, who had come on motorcycle and van, fled away from the place of occurrence after the commission of crime. It may be mentioned herein that PWs-Gian Singh, Mst. Mohinder Kour and Mst. Paramjeet Kour are father, mother and sister of the deceased respectively and are eye witnesses to the occurrence. 6. The conduct of the eye witnesses is unnatural on the spot as they neither touched the body of the victim nor made any attempt to save the victim and therefore raises the strong suspicion about their presence on the spot is what is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants. The trial court has gone through this aspect of the argument in detail while passing the judgment. The trial court has given reasons for not disbelieving the presence of the eye witnesses on spot. The court cannot while considering the prayer of the appellants herein in the present application give any final verdict on this aspect of the case. The trial court has gone through this aspect of the argument in detail while passing the judgment. The trial court has given reasons for not disbelieving the presence of the eye witnesses on spot. The court cannot while considering the prayer of the appellants herein in the present application give any final verdict on this aspect of the case. However, the court after going through the judgment is not persuaded to allow the prayer in the applications on this plea of the appellants. 7. The other argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that there was considerable delay in recording the statements of the above said witnesses in terms of Section 164-A Cr.P.C and no plausible cause was shown for such delay during the course of trial. Again, the trial Court has recorded its findings on this aspect of the case. The learned counsel is not able to impress upon the court that the view taken by the learned trial court on this aspect of the case is palpably unreasonable and unjust keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the FIR does not mention the name of the accused persons though the eye witnesses claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel for the other side has submitted that it is apparent from the record that the FIR came to be lodged on reliable sources and therefore there was no question of recording of the names of the eye witnesses in the FIR. The perusal of the judgment reveals that the trial court has taken note of this aspect of the case also and recorded its finding on the same. 9. The Court while dealing with the present applications is not required to fathom the credibility of the statements of the witnesses as the same is to be analyzed at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The prosecution has earned the conviction in the case after full-fledged trial. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants do not make out a case for grant of bail in the present case which relates to commission of offence under Section 302 RPC which without saying is a very serious offence. 10. The prosecution has earned the conviction in the case after full-fledged trial. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants do not make out a case for grant of bail in the present case which relates to commission of offence under Section 302 RPC which without saying is a very serious offence. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the role of the appellants, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh and Gurdeep Singh, entitles them to the relief prayed for in the applications. Of course, the role attributed and proved against the appellant, Harpreet Singh, is of firing the gun shots on the victim which resulted into the death of the victim. The court is not convinced that the appellants can claim relief in the applications as matter of right in view of their role during the course of occurrence. 11. No case is made out for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants-applicants herein. The applications are dismissed at this stage. It is made clear that any observation made in the order is confined only to the disposal of the present applications.