SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF PANJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Sukhdev Raj, has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 10-3-1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he was convicted under S. 302 of I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for three months under S. 302 of I. P. C. He was also sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one month under S. 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) In nutshell, prosecution case, as described and established before the learned trial Court, is like thus :- On 18-9-1993, at about 3.00 p.m., Sukhdev Raj appellant and Ranjit Singh, since deceased, being Punjab Home Guard employees, were armed with 7.62 bore S.L.R. (Rifles). On that date, they were directed to guard the Punjab and Sind Bank in village Mallan at 8.30 a.m., vide D. D. R. No. 3 dated 18-9-1993 (Ex. PS). At the aforesaid given time, complainant Head Constable Malkiat Singh (PW-6) Constable Hardev Singh (PW-7) and Constable Gurinder Singh, who were sitting outside the Police Post, Kotli Ablu, heard a noise of rifle shots from the side of the village. Thereupon, they got up and saw that at a distance of about 200 yards, Ranjit Singh was seen falling on the ground. On seeing so, they raised an alarm, "do not kill," "do not kill" and they also rushed towards the place of occurrence. Within their sight, appellant Sukhdev Raj fired four shots at Ranjit Singh. They caught hold of him (Sukhdev Raj) along with his rifle and cartridges. It also transpired that while on duty, they both had taken liquor together. Under the influence of liquor, there was an altercations between them. After this occurrence, Head Constable Malkiat Singh, who is complainant in this case, sent a wireless message to Police Station, Kot Bhai. Thereafter, Ranjit Singh injured was removed in a jeep to Civil Hospital, Muktsar, where he was declared "brought dead". From the hospital, ruqa (Ex. PH) was also sent to the Police Station. On receipt of the ruqa, ASI Balkar Singh (PW-13), who is the Investigating Officer in this case, reached the Civil Hospital, Muktsar and there statement {Ex. PJ) of Head Constable Malkiat Singh (PW-6) was recorded at 5.15 p.m. in the above narration of facts. He then made his endorsement (Ex. PJ/1) and sent the same to the Police Station. Ultimately, formal FIR (Ex. PJ/2) was recorded at 7.00 p.m. under S. 302 of I. P. C. and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by ASI Kimti Lal and Special Report was received by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha on the same date at 8.15 p.m. Investigation of this case was taken into hand by Balkar Singh ASI (PW- 13). He prepared inquest report (Ex. PB) and then got the post mortem conducted on the dead body of Ranjit Singh. Thereafter, on the same date, he reached the place of occurrence. Accused/appellant Sukhdev Raj was there in the custody of Constable Hardev Singh, so, he was arrested. Rifle (Ex. P32) and cartridges (Ex. P7 to P31) were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. He then inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PX with correct marginal notes in his hand. He also took into possession blood-stained earth vide recovery memo Ex. PN. Five empties (Ex. P33 to Ex. P37) were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM. The Investigating Officer then got appellant Sukhdev Raj medically examined at Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha. On his examination, smell of alcohol was found from the mouth of appellant Sukhdev Raj, but there was no injury on his person. He then also took into possession clothes of the deceased and other items handed over by the doctor vide recovery memo Ex. PK. On return to the Police Station, case property was deposited with the MHC. After completion of the formal investigation, the appellant was challaned for having committed the offences punishable under Ss. 302 of I. P. C. and 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The appellant was charge-sheeted under Ss. 302 of I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 3-2-1994, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.