LAKHPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -accused, Lakhpat Singh, has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence, recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, and upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for the offence under Section 304 -A IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that Surinderpal Singh was posted as D.T.O., Patiala and was residing in Kothi No. D -1, Passi Road, Patiala, and was provided with two Gunmen, Lakhpat Singh -accused and Ranbir Singh. Previously, Tejinder Pal Singh Sidhu was the DTO and was residing in that house, who after his new posting, had shifted to H. No. 21 -E, Model Town, Patiala. Gurmail Singh HC, PW -2, was the Gunman of Tejinder Pal Singh, who continued to live with the other Gunman in Kothi No. D -1 on account of paucity of space in the house of his officer. On 9.10.1992. the accused came to Kothi No. D -1 at about 8 -00 a.m. for performing his duties. He was cleaning his service revolver No. 426189 of .455, when the same went off accidentally and the shot hit Surinderpal Singh, who was standing nearby. Gurmail Singh, HC -complainant, immediately brought that fact to the notice of Tejinder Pal Singh and removed the injured to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he succumbed to his injury at about 10 -00 a.m. Information about the admission of that injured was sent by the doctor to the police station and on the receipt thereof, Pakhar Ram ASI, PW -7, came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant, Ex. PA. After recording his police proceedings, Ex. PA/1, he sent that statement to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR, Ex. PA/2, was recorded against the accused under Section 304 -A IPC. The ASI prepared the inquest report Ex. PW7/A, in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. He went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PW7/C with correct marginal notes. He collected the blood stained earth from that place, which was put in a small tin box and was converted into a parcel. The same was sealed by him with his seal "PR". The sealed parcel was taken into possession, vide Memo Ex. PW5/D. One empty cartridge of .455 was recovered from that place, which was converted into a parcel and was sealed by the ASI with the same seal. That sealed parcel was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PW7/B, Ranbir Singh produced the said service revolver and five live cartridges of the accused before the ASI. The revolver and the cartridges were converted into separate parcels and were sealed with the said seal. Those sealed parcels were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PW5/C. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by the doctor, who found ante mortem injury on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was the result of hemorrhage and shock due to that injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. One bullet was recovered from the dead body, which was put in a vial and the same was duly sealed by the doctor and was handed over to the ASI. The wearing apparels, found on the dead body, were produced before the ASI, who converted those into a parcel and sealed the same with his seal. On coming back to the police station, the ASI deposited the case property with the MHC. The sealed parcels containing the revolver and the empty cartridge were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 2.11.1991, through Faqir Chand, Constable and were delivered at that place with seals intact. After examination, it was opined by the Assistant Director of that laboratory that the said cartridge had been fired from that revolver. The parcel containing the blood stained wearing apparels and blood stained earth were sent to the Chemical Examiner and were delivered at that place with seals intact. After examination, it was reported by that Chemical Examiner that the same were stained with human blood. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and after the completion thereof, the challan was put in before JMIC, Patiala, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 304 -A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Jangir Lal, PW -1, Gurmail Singh HC, PW -2, Tejinderpal Singh Sidhu, PW -3,Sukhdarshan Singh HC, PW -4, Harpal Singh, Constable, PW -5, Jagdish Singh ASI, PW -6 and Pakhar Ram ASI. PW -7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He stated that the deceased died as a result of the shot fired by himself. The accused was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Jasbir Singh, DW -1 and Manit Singh,DW -2, in his defence evidence. After going through that evidence and hearing Assistant PP for the State and the defence counsel for the accused, JMIC, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 304 -A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -and default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appeal was preferred by the accused against that conviction and sentence, which was dismissed.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the counsel for the accused that the conviction of the accused could not have been recorded in the absence of any proof to the effect that the revolver from which the shot was alleged to have been fired, had been issued to the accused in his official capacity and that the shot, which killed the deceased, was actually fired from that revolver. In the absence of that evidence, no reliance could have been placed on the statement of Gurmail Singh HC, PW -2. As per the prosecution version, Ranbir Singh, Gunman, was also present at the time of occurrence, but was not examined by the prosecution, for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. He also referred to the defence evidence and on the basis thereof, tried to contend that the prosecution evidence stands rebutted by that defence evidence. He prayed for the acquittal of the accused.