NISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge their conviction under sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 27/29 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 for which they have been sentenced as under:-

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that on 17.2.1992 at 7/7.30 PM, Avtar Singh, his brother Hoshiar Singh and his son Nishan Singh armed with .12 bore double barrel gun came to the street outside the house of Gurmit Singh and started raising a 'lalkara' and giving abuses to Gurmit Singh and Dharam Singh. This resulted in a verbal duel between the parties followed by Avtar Singh exhorting Hoshiar Singh to shoot Gurmit Singh and teaching him lesson for draining out the water through their fields. Nishan Singh fired two shots one of which hit Gurmit Singh on the knee and the other on the leg-calf. He raised alarm on which the accused ran away. Gurmit Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Dasuya where ASI Kuldip Singh PW11 recorded his statement which led to recording of FIR. The gun belonged to Sant Daljit Singh, accused. The prosecution cited as many as 17 witnesses. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW1 Jatinder Kumar Singh, PW2 Jasbir Singh, PW3 Dharam Singh, PW4 Gurmit Singh, complainant, PW5 Joginder Singh, PW6 Ajit Singh, PW7 Apar Singh, PW8 Dr. Jarnail Singh, PW9 Dr. HS Sandhu, PW10 SP Chaudhary and PW11 SI Kuldip Singh. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and examined DW1 Sukhdev Singh, Dr. Gurmail Singh DW2, Harbans Singh DW3 and Didar Singh DW4.

(3.) After considering the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of Dharam Singh PW3, Gurmit Singh PW4, and Joginder Singh PW5, who were all eye witnesses and evidence of Dr. Jarnail Singh PW8 and the other evidence, the trial court held the case of the prosecution to be fully proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them as above. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, stated that in view of direct evidence of eye witnesses, he could not question the conviction of the appellants but having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place 15 years ago, lenient view may be taken on sentence having regard to the fact that the appellants have compensated the injured Gurmit Singh, who is now settled abroad. Balbir Singh, brother of the injured Gurmit Singh is present in Court through Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate and stated that he has no objection to the lenient view being taken on sentence and the parties are living peacefully.