SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.3.2010 and since the appeal was decided, although on merits, after going through the evidence and with the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, but without any representation from the side of the appellant, vide order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the Supreme Court on the sole ground that the appellant was not heard the decision dated 18.3.20110 was set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. The present decision decides the appeal after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the State.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.1.2008, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence establishes that on 30.6.2002, using the SAF carbine issued to the appellant on duty at the gate of PS Mayur Vihar, the appellant fired indiscriminately at Satish with the intention of causing the death of Satish and that Satish died as a result of bullet injuries suffered by him and thus the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence of murder. The learned Trial Judge has also convicted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for the injuries suffered by HC Panwati who was injured due to indiscriminate firing by the appellant. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(3.) Before we note the evidence on record, to focus on the issue which we have to decide, we begin by noting the appellant?s version pertaining to the incident when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. To Question No.48: Do you want to say anything about this case? The appellant replied:-