AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh alias Gurjeet Singh son of Harbans Singh of village Asal Autar has been sentenced to death on three counts under Section 302. Indian Penal Code. He has been further convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, on eleven counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count. His co-accused, i. e. , Aiit Singh son of Sohan Singh, Harbhajan Singh alias daval Singh, Gurbax Singh and Pala Singh, who were tried with Aiit Singh alias gurjeet Singh for constructive liability for the offences for which Ajit Singh has been convicted, were given the benefit of the doubt by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and were acquitted.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this appeal and Murder Reference, the Public Prosecutor made an application under Sections 428 and 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for additional evidence and personal appearance of the appellant in view of a ground taken by the appellant in the grounds of appeal that in any case in the circumstances of the case capital punishment was not called for. This was on account of some dispute raised with regard to the age of Ajit Singh. In the meantime additional grounds of appeal were submitted to this Court by Aiit Singh through jail. These were forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, on the 25th of July, 1969. In the additional grounds of appeal it was urged that at the time of the commission of the offence the appellant was L. A. C. In the Air Force and was on active service although on leave, and that under Section 549, Criminal procedure Code, and Rule 3 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952, it was incumbent upon the Committing Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge to inform the competent air force authority in writing about the case against the appellant and to enquire, before proceeding with the appellant's case whether the said authority wanted to claim the appellant for trial by Court Martial. It was maintained that the provisions of Rule 3 of criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952, not having been complied with, the trial was vitiated.

(3.) WHILE we were hearing the appeal on the 14th of August, 1969, it was pointed out that there was no evidence on the record of this case on the basis of which It could be asserted that the appellant at the time of the incident was in the Air force so as to entitle him to trial by Court Martial. The hearing was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the appellant to place before this Court, if ho was so advised, evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise in order to lay the basis for the ground taken before us. In view of the importance of the law point involved we directed the learned Advocate-General to assist us in this matter himself.