JACKARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaswinder Singh, Jagrup Singh and the appellant herein Jackaran Singh were tried for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur. While Jaswinder Singh was acquitted Jagrup Singh was found guilty of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer nine months R. I. Jackaran Singh - appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. Jackaran Singh appellant alone is before us in this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 2nd June, 1984 at about 8.30 p.m. when Sham Lal (deceased) was returning along with his brother Surinder Kumar, PW4 after taking his bath, near the workshop of Nahar Singh, the appellant and Jagrup Singh co-accused armed with a revolver and a pistol respectively suddenly came out from behind a tree. Jaswinder Singh the acquitted co-accused was also with them. They both fired at Sham Lal, who died at the spot. A telephonic communication was given to Gurmel Singh, SHO, at the Police Station, who rushed to the spot and after recording the statement of Surinder Kumar, PW-4 (Ex. P-6), which formed the basis of the FIR, took the investigation in hand. The inquest report of the dead body was prepared and on a search from near the dead body, three empties (Ex. M/O/1 to M/O/3) were recovered. They were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. P-7. Blood stained earth was also collected vide memo Ex. P-8. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was performed by Dr. Sant Parkash Singh, Senior medical Officer, Muktear, PW1 on 3rd June, 1984 at 11.30 a.m. According to the medical witness, injuries Nos. 3 and 4 on the deceased were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Since the injuries have been reproduced by the trial court, we refrain from repeating the same in this judgment). Further, investigation was, thereafter, taken over by Inder Singh, SMO, PW-7 on 16-6-1984. The appellant was arrested and on his interrogation, he disclosed that he had concealed one revolver along with ten cartridges under the heap of the cotton sticks in his field. His disclosure statement Ex. P-9 was recorded which was attested by the Panch witnesses Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI. Consequent upon the disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered revolver Ex. M/O/4 and ten catridges Ex. M/O/5 to M/O/14 from his field from under the heap of cotton sticks. A recovery memo Ex. P-9/A was prepared. It was also attested by the panch witnesses, Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh ASI. The empty cartridges as also the revolver were later on sent in separate sealed parcels to the Ballistic Expert, who opined that the empties had been fired from revolver M/O/4. On 28the June, 1984, ASI Mohinder Partap arranged a Test Identification Parade before Shri Narinder Singh Bath, Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, PW-2. The appellant and his co-accused, however, refused to participate in the identification parade on the plea that ever since the initiation of the case, the witnesses had been seeing them. After completing the investigation, the appellant and others were put on trial.

(3.) The prosecution, with a view to connect the appellant with the crime, examined Dr. Sant Parkash Singh, PW-1, Narinder Singh Bath, PW-2, Gurbachan Singh Draftsman, PW-3, Surinder Kumar, PW-4, Nihal Singh, PW-5, Gurmel Singh, SI, PW-6 and Inder Singh, PW-7. Besides, the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and affidavits of some of the police officials were also tendered. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations, including the recovery of the revolver Ex. M/O/4 and the cartridges Ex. M/O/5 to M/O/14 at his instance, and pleaded false implication.