KULWANT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We condone the delay and grant leave to appeal in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 510 of 1999. Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) No. 511 of 1999 is, however, dismissed.

(2.) By judgment dated April 4, 1996 District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicted Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, Amarjit Singh was convicted under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Amarjit Singh was also convicted for an offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of another one month. Jagsir Singh was convicted under S. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Nine other accused (Jitender Singh, Surender Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kewal Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurmail Singh, Paramjit Singh, Richpal Singh and Mani Ram), also tried along with Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, were, however, acquitted.

(3.) Against the judgment of District and Sessions Judge two appeals were filed in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur - one by Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh against their conviction and sentence and other by the State of Rajasthan against acquittal of nine other accused. By the impugned judgment dated February 3, 1998 learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed in appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan holding that the acquittal of the accused was by a well reasoned order. In the other appeal High Court maintained the conviction of Amarjit Singh but reduced his sentence to already undergone. Jagsir Singh was, however, acquitted of the offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved complainant has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.