MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the two appellants one of them is appellant 1. Mohinder Singh who was convicted for an offenceunder S. 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment two other persons also were convicted for an offence under S. 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code and their appeal was heard by this court on 22/03/1978. This court acquitted the two appellants from the offence under S. 307 read with S. 34 IPC. In this appeal appellant 1, Mohinder Singh was also convicted for an offence under section 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code and the learned counsel for the State frankly conceded that the case of Mohinder Singh is exactly the same as was the case of the two appellants in Criminal Appeal no. 150 of 1978. In this view of the matter the appeal of Mohinder singh has to be accepted. His conviction under S. 307 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code therefore, is set aside and is acquitted of the charge. As regards the conviction of the appellant Mohinder Singh for an offence under S. 25 of the Arms Act is concerned, the conviction is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone.

(2.) As regards Lakha Singh, this appellant was convicted for the offence under S. 307 IPC. The prosecution story was that when the party of the complainant opened door and came out armed with weapons like a gandasa, lathi and other weapons, this appellant alongwith the others were standing outside the gate and appellant Lakha singh was first given a blow by gandasa. After receiving this blow, according to the prosecution case he fired his pistol which resulted to grievous injury to the injured person Gian Singh. Under these circumstances his conviction under S. 307 could not be assailed but the peculiar circumstances of the case and the age of the appellant who at the time of the incident was only 20 years are the circumstances which deserve consideration while considering the question of sentence. It is also pertinent to know that this incident was of 1974 and no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after more than 12 years. In view of these peculiar circumstances in our opinion the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice.

(3.) He is also convicted under S. 25 of the Arms Act and for that offence also the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone.