JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJMER Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sanjay Kumar were charged on 14.3.1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for being members of an unlawful assembly. Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sanjay Kumar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Amardeep Singh; and Ajmer Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code. Thereafter they were tried for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge, Mrs. Bimla Gautam, vide her judgment dated 22.8.1990 found that the charges against Ajmer Singh and Sanjay alias Kala had not been proved and hence acquitted them. However, the learned Judge convicted Baljit Singh, Jagtar Singh and Gurmit Singh, appellants under Section 30, read with Section 34 of the Code, after acquitting them of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 of the Code, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Criminal Appeal No. 266-DB of 1990 has been preferred by Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh and Gurmit Singh. Gurmit Singh, appellant has also separately filed Criminal Appeal No. 273-DB of 1990 assailing the same judgment. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and have also gone through the record of the case.

(2.) AT the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate has been inordinately delayed by the prosecution and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the chances of fabrication of a false case against the appellants as a result of consultations and deliberations cannot be ruled out. Undoubtedly, the endorsement on the first information report Exhibit PD by the Ilaqa Magistrate shows that it was received by him at 10.49 p.m. The occurrence had taken place at about 2 p.m. and the first information report Exhibit PD had been lodged by PW-2 Jaspreet Singh at about 3.15 p.m. The point to be considered is whether the prosecution has been able to satisfactorily explain the alleged delay in the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate and whether there is any other evidence on the record to rule out the scope for the contention that the intervening time may have been used by the prosecution for fabricating a false version against the appellants.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record including the sworn testimony of PW-2 Jaspreet Singh, informant, and PW-3 Randhir Singh, the second eye-witness. In our view, the prosecution version that the appellants had dealt the fatal blows to the deceased, stands fully established from their testimony.