SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, in an unfortunate incident, which took place on 23.6.2008, a young boy, aged 20 years, namely Kuldeep son of Mohan Sharma, who was doing the labour work, was killed by a gun shot fired by appellant Shamsher Singh. For the said incident, five accused were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. In addition to these offences, the appellant was also tried for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, vide judgment dated 18.5.2009, passed by the trial court, only the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and the remaining four accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Vide order dated 20.5.2009, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Against the said judgment and order, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant, which was admitted on 27.5.2009. In the appeal, the appellant moved an application for suspension of his sentence. During the hearing of that application, it was brought to the notice of the Court that in the unfortunate incident, a boy aged 20 years, who was doing the labour work and belonging to a very poor family, was killed at the hands of the appellant, without any intention of the appellant to kill him, as the bullet, which was fired by the appellant in order to scare the complainant and the other shopkeepers, hit that boy, while he was passing from the place of occurrence. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the appellant made a prayer that family of the appellant is ready to pay compensation to the parents of the deceased, therefore, appeal of the appellant be heard early, as according to the learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was not sustainable. In view of the said offer, this Court with the assistance of the learned State Counsel, tried to locate the parents of the deceased and ultimately, they were located in Kanpur, and on 13.5.2010, they appeared in the court. In these circumstances, learned State counsel very fairly stated that he has no objection, if the appeal is heard early. Thus, the appeal was ordered to be listed for regular hearing. Consequently, the main appeal has been listed for regular hearing.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the main appeal.