BILLU ALIAS HARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Billu @ Harinder Singh has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof, he has been ordered to further undergo RI for four months. He has also been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for two months, vide order dated September 9, 1993 recorded by Shri A.S. Sodhi, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He was charged under Section 302 IPC for having caused death of Gurmit Singh. The facts leading to the death of Gurmit Singh need a necessary mention.

(2.) JASBIR Kaur widow of deceased Gurmit Singh got her statement recorded to Parkash Singh, SI Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana in which she stated that she was married with Gurmit Singh about ten years back. Her husband had two brothers, namely, Kuldip Singh and Balbir Singh. Kuldeep Singh had expired. Her husband used to cultivate the land in village. Her husband's younger brother (Dewar) was running the business of property dealer in the city. They all were residing together. Balbir Singh had gone outside in relations on the day of occurrence. About four months back, Billu son of Karnail Singh, the appellant herein, who was their relation, started residing with them at their house. He used to assist her Dewar in the business of property dealer. On the night of occurrence at about 10.30 PM, her husband and Billu, after taking their meals, were about to go to bed when her husband and Billu, while talking in the room of her Dewar, shouted at each other. After hearing the noise, she and Davinder, son of the elder brother of her husband (Jeth) entered the room. Within their sight, Billu lifted the liensed double barrel gun of her Dewar Balbir Singh lying in a corner of the room and fired a shot which hit on the left side of chest of her husband. Consequently, on sustaining the injury, her husband fell down on the ground and expired at the spot. Billu after throwing the gun at the spot, ran away by pushing her aside. She, after leaving her husband's elder brother's wife (Jethani) to guard the dead body of her husband and taking her neighbour Rajpal Singh, was going to the police station for lodging the report but SI Parkash Singh met her at Octroi post of village Jugiana, to whom she made her statement there. As per statement of Jasbir Kaur, the occurrence leading to death of Gurmit Singh had taken place on June 18, 1992 at 10.30 P.M., the report whereof, as mentioned above, was lodged by her at 1 AM at night on June 19, 1992. As per the records, the special report with regard to incident reached the Magistrate concerned at Ludhiana at 7 AM on June 19, 1992.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant stated that at about 7 PM on June 18, 1992 he was viewing the Television installed in the room of Balbir Singh while sitting on the bed. Being tired and exhausted after day's work, he knocked off to sleep which was resented to by Gurmit Singh deceased. There was an altercation between both of them and the deceased got infuriated and he took the loaded gun to shoot at him. Feeling apprehensive, and finding no other way out, he pounced upon the deceased in order to snatch the gun from him. Harminder Kaur PW reached there in the meantime and she tried to separate them and she was hit on the fore- head during her rescue operation by the butt portion of the gun. During the process of snatching, the gun went off. Jasbir Kaur and Davinder Singh were not present there. In view of the fact that the prosecution version is supported by three witnesses, one of whom happens to be an injured, as also in view of the fact that the appellant has admitted his presence in the house and also the occurrence but in a different manner, the learned defence counsel, realising perhaps, it to be a case where the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, confined his argument only with regard to nature of offence and the quantum of punishment. In support of the appeal, therefore, the only contention of the learned defence counsel is that even if the prosecution version is believed in its entirety, no case under Section 302 IPC shall be made out against the appellant and at the most he can be held guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.