IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 Dated of Decision:- February 04, 2009 Satnam Singh and others ....APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Sh. A.S.Trikha, Advocate for appellant No.1. Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for appellants No. 2 and 3. Sh. S.S.Gill, Addl. Advocate General Punjab. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 13.4.2006 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby he convicted Satnam Singh Nehang @ Satta son of Pritam Singh under Sections 307, 459 and 393 IPC. He also convicted Sandeep Singh son of Darshan Singh and Mandeep Singh son of Satnam Singh under Sections 307/34, 459 and 393 IPC. Satnam Singh was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 IPC and in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Under Section 459 IPC, he was sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for three months. Under Section 393 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 2- for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for two months. Sandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307/34 IPC and in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Under Section 459 IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to further undergo R.I. for three months each. Under Section 393 IPC, both were sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to further undergo R.I. for two months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned trial Court in its wisdom has acquitted Tarsem Singh, who has been arrayed as an accused. State has not filed any appeal against his acquittal. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PC of Kewal Singh given to Piara Singh SI at Jeewan Petrol Pump, Bye Pass, Jalandhar. Kewal singh stated, that he is working at the Petrol Pump. On 8.6.2002 he along with Ashok Kumar son of Gian Singh, who is also his co- worker, filled petrol in different vehicles till 11.O’ Clock in the night. After switching off the machines, they went to their cabin. At about 3.30 in the morning, someone knocked at the outer shutter of the cabin. On hearing the noise, Kewal Singh lifted the shutter. On lifting of the shutter, one Nihang Singh, who was wearing a blue robe, pushed inside. The Nihang Singh had a .12 bore gun and he put it on his ear, which he had hidden at the back, when Kewal Singh had opened the shutter. In the meantime, Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 3- Ashok Kumar got up and raised an alarm. Another person, who was sleeping on the container, which was parked outside the petrol pump, came down. His name was Ranjit Singh son of Dhani Ram. Ranjit Singh shouted to catch hold of the thief. On this, the Nihang Singh ran back. All three of them ran after him. There were two other companions of the Nihang Singh standing outside. Both were clean shaven. All three i.e. the Nihang Singh and his two companions ran towards the road. Ranjit Singh, who was running after the Nihang Singh and when he reached near him to catch hold of him, the Nihang Singh fired a shot with his double barrel gun, which hit Ranjit Singh on his forehead and eyes. All the three accused then were successful in running away. They left their Vespa Scooter No.PB- 33/4951. Ranjit Singh was taken by the truck owner Raj Kumar and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Kewal Singh further stated, that he could identify the Nihang Singh, if he came before him, as the outer lights of the petrol pump were on. He had seen the Nihang Singh, who had come at the petrol pump for robbery. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PC/2 was recorded on 9.6.2002 at 5.30 a.m. The special report reached the Duty Magistrate Jalandhar on the same day at 6.35 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Harjit Singh PW1, ASI Ajay Kumar PW2, R.K.Sandhir PW3, Kewal Singh PW4, Dr. P.K.Kataria PW5, Ranjit Singh PW6, Dr.Sangeet Mittal PW7, Dr. T.P.Singh PW8, Ashok Singh PW9, Dr. Ashok Kumar Khullar PW10, ASI Pushap Bali PW11, Fateh Chand Sharma PW12, Dr. S.N.Sharma PW13, Piara Singh SI PW13 and HC Resham Lal PW14. Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 4- Learned counsels for the appellants have argued, that both Sandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh were arrested on 10.6.2002. Nothing has been stated by the Investigating Officer Piara Singh as to how these two appellants were arrested. He has not mentioned as to who got them arrested. No test identification parade was held, nor was an offer made to the appellants. Finger-print expert Fateh Chand Sharma PW12 is a private practitioner. Official finger-print experts were always available in Phillaur, but again the Investigating Officer has not stated as to why he did not summon a team from the Police Training College, Phillaur, to pick up the finger prints. Both Kewal Singh PW4 and Ashok Singh PW9 have stated in their testimony, that they were inside the petrol pump and were asleep. It was not possible for them to recognize appellants Sandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh. As per their statements, it was appellant Satnam Singh, who had knocked at the shutter and it was he, who entered the petrol pump. Nothing has come in evidence as to who was the owner of the .12 bore DBBL gun, which was taken into possession from appellant Satnam Singh. Section 459 IPC cannot be applicable to the appellants, as the alleged occurrence had taken place at a public place and not at a private place. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that it is an eye witness account and both Kewal Singh PW4 and Ashok Singh PW9 have seen the occurrence. Lights were on. All the three appellants have been recognized in Court. Their names were not known to the eye- witnesses, as they were strangers, who came to burgle the petrol pump. The arrest of the appellants is prompt. Both Kewal Singh PW4 and Ashok Singh PW9 are Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 5- independent witnesses. They are neither inimical towards the appellants, nor have any sort of association with injured Ranjit Singh PW6. Acquitted accused Tarsem Singh was the one, who was owner of the scooter No.PB- 33/4951, which was taken into possession by the police from the place of occurrence. It is thereafter, that the investigation team after taking Tarsem Singh into custody came to know as to who were the assailants. Recovery of gun was made from appellant Satnam Singh. The scooter on which he was arrested, was taken into possession and a bottle of liquor was also taken into possession by the Investigating team. Finger-print expert Fateh Chand Sharma PW12 is a retired senior Inspector from the Finger Prints Bureau, Police Training College, Phillaur. He is an experienced hand finger- print expert with vast knowledge at his command. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Ranjit Singh PW6, the injured witness, came into the witness box and has stated, that it was immediately after five minutes of his arrival that a person in the dress of a Nihang knocked at the shutter of the petrol pump and Kewal Singh opened the shutter. The Nihang put a .12 bore gun on the temple of Kewal Singh. In the meanwhile, Ashok Singh also woke up and shouted for help. Ranjit Singh PW6 came towards the cabin. The Nihang Singh tried to escape on his scooter. He (PW6) tried to stop him by catching hold of him. The Nihang ran and then fired a shot from his .12 bore DBBL gun at Ranjit Singh, which hit him on the face and eyes. Appellants were then telling each other to run, as work had been done. He Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 6- was taken to the hospital. He has described the Nihang as 5 feet 1 inch. All the three appellants were young. In this incident Ranjit Singh PW6 lost his eye sight. Though the witness was blind, but the learned trial Court after convincing himself regarding the physical fitness of the witness, recorded the statement of Ranjit Singh PW6 on oath. Nothing worthwhile could be taken out from the cross-examination of this witness. He has stated, when he was running after the Nihang, that the Nihang fired at him from a distance of 20-25 feet. Though this witness is an eye witness to the occurrence, but since he got blind, he was not in a position to identify the appellants in Court, but he has given the account of the occurrence and the rough description of the type of persons who had come. Both Kewal Singh PW4 and Ashok Singh PW9 have corroborated each other and corroborated the statement of Ranjit Singh PW6. They have identified the appellants in Court. Both have stated, that the appellants present in Court are accused Satnam Singh, Mandeep Singh and Sandeep Singh. Further they have stated, that they are the same persons, who had come to the petrol pump and fired at Ranjit Singh PW6, by which he got injured. Kewal Singh PW4 and Ashok Singh PW9 have stated in their testimony that Ranjit Singh PW6 had received 18/20 pellets on his face and Ranjit Singh PW6 was at a distance of about 20 feet. They have stated, that one of the appellants was carrying a sword. Fateh Chand Sharma PW12 has corroborated the version put forward by the eye-witnesses Kewal Singh PW4, Ashok Singh PW9 and Ranjit Singh PW6. He has stated that he reached the spot i.e. Jivan Petrol Pump at about 5.00 a.m. on 9.6.2002. He was shown one bottle of liquor Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 7- brand Big Boss and one piece of glass, which was the door of the showroom of the petrol pump. He examined both the articles with powder and developed finger prints. He examined some other articles also. He prepared their parcels. He suspected that it was the finger-prints of the accused. He has stated, that he retired as a Finger Prints Expert from FPB Phillaur. He is a qualified Finger Prints Expert from Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. He has further stated, that he had delivered finger print opinion on behalf of International Crime Team of England in multiple Murder Cases. Now he was doing private practice. SI Piara Singh PW13, the Investigation Officer has stated, that he took scooter No.PB-33/4951 Vespa, along with the bottle of liquor into possession vide memo Ex.PD. Pieces of glass were also taken into possession and were made into parcels. He arrested Tarsem Singh on 10.6.2002, as the scooter bearing No.PB-33/4951 was in the name of the father of Tarsem Singh. On the same day, he arrested Satnam Singh and took into possession one scooter CHL-5165 Bajaj Chetak. One DBBL gun, along with six cartridges out of which one was empty, was also recovered from the possession of appellant Satnam Singh. On 12.6.2002 he moved an application Ex.PW14/B before the Medical Officer, Kataria Eye Hospital, Jalandhar, for obtaining opinion and recorded the statement of injured Ranjit Singh. After lifting finger prints by Fateh Chand Sharma PW12, they were sent to the Finger Prints Bureau, Phiallur. On 9.6.2002 Dr. T.P.Singh PW8, Medical Incharge, S.H.C. Nawan Pind Taprian District Jalandhar medico legally examined Ranjit Singh PW6 at 4.05 a.m. He found the following injuries on his person:- Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 8- “1. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present on the left cheek. 2 cms from the left nasal ala. Advised X. Ray. 2. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 3 cms superolateral to injury No.1. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 3. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 1.6 cm superolateral to injury No.2. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 4. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present 1 cm above to injury No.3. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 5. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present 1 cm lateral to injury No.3. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 6. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present 1.2 cm on outer canthus of left eye. Advised X.Ray. 7. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present 2 cms lateral to injury No.6. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 8. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter at the junction of medium 2/3rd and lateral 1/3rd of left eye brow. Advised X.Ray. 9. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 1 cm sperolateral to injury No.8. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X.Ray. 10. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 1.3 cm above and lateral to injury No.9. Advised X.Ray. 11. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 3.5 cm above injury No.8 over lying a diffused swelling of 2 cm x 1.5 cm. 12. Lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 3 cm medial to injury No.7. Advised X.Ray. Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 9- 13. Lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 2 cm above injury No.12. Advised X.Ray. 14. Lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter 2 cm medial to injury No.13. Advised X.Ray. 15. Lacerated wound of 5 cm above right eye brow with under lying swelling of 2 cm x 2 cm. Advised X.Ray. 16. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present 3 cm medial to injury No.15. Advised X.Ray. 17. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter present on junction of medial 4/5th and later 1/5th. Advised X.Ray. 18. A lacerated wound of 3 mm diameter on the medial aspect of upper eye lid of right eye. Advised eye surgeon’s opinion and X.Ray. 19. Lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter on the right upper eye lid. 1 cm above injury No.18. Kept under eye surgeon’s opinion and X.Ray. 20. The left eye was swollen and tense and protruding out with a lacerated wound of 3 mm diameter on the lateral aspect of lower lid. Kept under Eye Surgeon’s opinion and X.Ray. 21. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter on the right cheek 1.5 cm below outer canthus of right eye. Advised X.Ray. 22. A lacerated wound wound of 2 mm diameter on the right temple region 2.5 cm from outer canthus of right eye. Advised X.Ray. 23. A lacerated wound of 2 mm diameter on the frontal bone 3 cm from the anterior hair line. Advised X.Ray”. It is clear from these injuries that they are gun shot injuries. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. The finger prints also being that of the appellant Satnam Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB of 2006 - 10- As per the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Conviction of the appellants is maintained. Sentence of the appellants seems to be on the higher side. Sentence of appellant Satnam Singh Nehang @ Satta son of Pritam Singh is modified from life imprisonment to R.I. for seven years under Section 307/459 and four years under Section 393 IPC. He is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to injured Ranjit Singh, who has lost his eye sight because of the pellet injuries. Sentence of appellants Sandeep Singh son of Darshan Singh and Mandeep Singh son of Satnam Singh is modified from life imprisonment to R.I. for four years under Section 307/34, 393 and 459 IPC. Further they are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to Ranjit Singh injured. All the sentences of the appellants/accused shall run concurrently. With the above modification in sentence, appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (L.N.MITTAL) February 04, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO