IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 1005-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 24 .10.2008 *** Major Singh .. Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S.Sra, DAG Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant was tried and ultimately convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, for commission of offences under Section 307/392/353 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. For offence under Section 307, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for four months, under Section 392 IPC, to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months; under Section 353 IPC to undergo RI for six months and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. As per prosecution version, PHG Buta Singh (PW5) complainant made statement that on the night intervening 28/29.8.1995 he was put on Santry-duty duly armed with rifle 303 bore having But No.959 in which five live cartridges of the same bore were loaded on the outer gate of Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. At about 1.30 A.M. at night time, the accused Major Singh who was earlier posted at Police Station Sultanpur Crl. Appeal No. 1005-SB of 1997 -2- Lodhi and was known to the complainant knocked the gate of the police station. PHG Buta Singh identified the accused from his voice and opened the gate. At that time PHG Thana Singh (PW6) was also standing near the complainant as he had come there after taking water. The accused soon after entering the gate snatched the rifle with which the complainant was armed and ran with it towards outside. The accused challenged that he would not leave those who were making complaints against him. Both the complainant and PHG Thana Singh ran after the accused in order to take back the rifle from him but the accused intending to kill the complainant and PW Thana Singh aimed the rifle towards them and fired. They both took shelter behind the wall and then Constable Major Singh ran away along with rifle by taking benefit of darkness. On the basis of statement, Exhibit PE, made by PHG Buta Singh before the police, the present case was registered against the accused. PW8 ASI Sarup Singh accompanied with PWs Buta Singh and Thana Singh inspected the place of occurrence and recovered from there an empty Ex.P1, which was taken into police possession and was sealed in a tin box. The Investigating Officer searched for the accused and arrested him from 'T' point Pajjian of Sultanpur Lodhi. He recovered the rifle snatched by the accused from PHG Buta Singh and unloaded the same. The Investigating Officer recovered one live cartridge from the chamber of the rifle and three from the magazine. He took into police possession rifle Ex.P2 and the live cartridges Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. The rifle was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh along with the empty and live cartridges. The Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh reported that the empty had been fired from the rifle Ex.P2. The District Magistrate, Kapurthala accorded sanction Ex.PA to prosecute the accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act while SSP Kapurthala accorded sanction Ex.PB to prosecute the accused on the allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307/392/353/186 IPC. S.I.Mangat Rai had moved formal complaint under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.PK. On completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned by S.I.Mangat Rai. The learned trial Court on finding a prima-facie case under Sections 307/392/353 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act charge-sheeted the appellant to which he pleaded not Crl. Appeal No. 1005-SB of 1997 -3- guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sudesh Raj, PW-2 SI Harjinder Singh, PW-3 Shangara Singh, PW-4 HC Sukhbir Singh, PW-5 PHG Buta Singh, PW-6 PHG Thana Singh, PW-7 MHC Joginder Pal and PW-8 ASI Sarup Singh and after tendering into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner as Exhibit PL, closed its evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in he case. He however, did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument for the reduction of the sentence on the ground that he is facing protracted trial for the last 13 years. He has already undergone about one and a half months of sentence. There was no pre-meditation. The situation flared the appellant as he was aggrieved that he will not let-off the person who had been complaining against him. The arguments have been heard in this context. Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, if effect on others and the desirablity of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. It is apparent from records that it is a case of no injury. The appellant never tried to repeat the shot as such, no attempt has been made to do undue advantage of the dominant situation, in which the appellant was placed at that time. Fear of being sent behind the bars had been lurking in Crl. Appeal No. 1005-SB of 1997 -4- their minds for the last about thirteen years. There is nothing on record to indicate that in all these years he is not leading a disciplined life. He is already stated to have remained in jail for about one and a half month. He has already lost his job. He, if sent behind the bars at this juncture, then not only he, but his family members will also suffer and the family atmosphere would be vitiated. In the instant case the judicial compassion can play a role and leniency can be shown to him. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 392 IPC is up-held. However, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With the above modification, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 24, 2008 JS