MAHESH CHAND Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence recorded by the Addl. Judge, Designated Court, Chandigarh. He was convicted for an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year R. I. For the offence under Section 452, I. P. C., he was sentenced to suffer two years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo six months R. I. For the offence under Section 188, I. P. C., he was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. The appellant was also sentenced for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to further undergo three months. R. I. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to five years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo one year's R. I.

(2.) After firing at Chandra Wati, P. W. 11 the appellant fled away and was chased and caught red handed by Amar Lal P. W. 10 and the police patrol party including Gurmukh Singh P. W. 12. The pistol P 1 and three live cartridges, besides one empty cartridge were recovered from his possession. The evidence of P. W. 10 Amar Lal and P. W. 12 S. I. Gurmukh Singh, regarding the chase and apprehension of the appellant is cogent and consistent. It has received ample corroboration from the testimony of Chandra Wati, P. W. 11 who had seen the accused running away and later on being caught by P. W. 10 and others. The bullet which had caused the injury to Chandra Wati P. W. 11 was recovered by Dr. Harjinder Singh P. W. during the operation from the body of Chandra Wati. The doctor had found that the bullet had passed through the right lung and got embedded in the posterior chest wall. The bullet was handed over to the police by the doctor and was properly secured and sealed. Subsequently, the pistol which had been recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest along with the empty cartridge and the three live cartridges, were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh in the secured parcels. The bullet which had been recovered from the body of Chandra Wati P. W. 11 by Dr. Harjinder Singh PW8 was also sent in a separate sealed cover to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the opinion of the Assistant Director, Ballistics, the .303 crime cartridge case marked C/1 and the .303 crime bullet cartridge marked B/1 had been fired through the country made pistol marked 'A' (Ex. P1) and 'they could not have been fired through any other fire-arm because every fire arm has its own individual characteristic marks.' The evidence of the ballistic expert coupled with the testimony of PW8 Dr. Harjinder Singh and P. W. 10 and P. W. 12 is clinching. No infirmity whatsoever has been pointed out in the prosecution evidence to us. The material on the record clearly establishes the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

(3.) Faced with the unimpeachable prosecution witness, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant, a young man hailing from U. P. for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. was excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find merit in that submission and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the age of the appellant, reduce the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. from seven years' R. I. to five years' R. I. The sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default thereof for the said offence is, however, maintained. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Section 452, I. P. C., 188 I. P. C., Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms Act are also upheld and maintained. All substantive sentences shall run concurrently.