GAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Miscellaneous application, in terms of Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) for grant of special leave to appeal, has been filed by Gajjan Singh against the judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in Sessions case No. 12 of 16.02.2011, emanating from FIR No. 111 dated 02.08.2008 under Sections 307 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, whereby, respondents Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge framed against them. Along with the said application, an application has been filed seeking condonation of 282 days delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.08.2008, Sehdev Singh ASI alongwith other police officials was present for investigation of the present case, where they received a secret information that respondent No.3 (Pritam Singh) was hiding himself in a room situated in the fields of Rajinder. On this information, police party reached there and arrested him and recovered from his personal search, one country made pistol of 315 bore, loaded with one cartridge. The pistol was unloaded and seized by the police vide recovery memo.

(3.) During the investigation, Pritam Singh (respondent No.3) made a statement that on 02.08.2008, he was armed with pistol, Sukhdev (respondent No. 2) was armed with rifle, Gopi and Saheb Singh (respondent No.4) were armed with lathis and had gone to the fields of Gajjan Singh (applicant) with an intention to kill him. He stated that he fired on Gajjan Singh (applicant) with his country made pistol of 315 bore, while Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) fired from his rifle and Gopi and Saheb Singh (respondent No.4) brandished their lathis on the ground to scare Gajjan Singh (applicant), who did not come out of his house and was, therefore, saved. On his statement, the case was registered and respondents No.2 to 4 were arrested After investigation, no substance was found in these allegations and, therefore, cancellation report was filed before the learned Illaqa Magistrate who took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session and the case was entrusted to the learned trial Court, who framed charge under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against respondents Nos.2 to 4 and in addition under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2), whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.