JAGGA SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000807-000807 / 2007
Diary number: 8702 / 2007
Advocates: ANNAM D. N. RAO Vs
KULDIP SINGH
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 807 OF 2007
JAGGA SINGH & ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated
04.12.2006.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment
and hence we are not repeating the same here except where
necessary.
In brief, the prosecution case is that on 24.4.92 at
about 8.30 p.m., the 3 accused came to the house of Raja
Singh. Later, one of them fired at Baggar Singh on his
right thigh. Baggar Singh fell down. Then the accused
took away the deceased Hoshiar Singh towards village
Heerawala. After about 20 minutes the sound of 3 or 4
shots was heard. Next morning the dead body of Hoshiar
Singh was found.
The trial Court convicted Jagga Singh to 7 years R.I.
and a fine under Section 307 IPC. Jagtar Singh and Kaka
Singh were also sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine. The
appeals of the accused to the High Court were dismissed,
but the appeal of the State regarding acquittal of the
accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 was allowed,
and they were convicted under Section 302. Hence, this
appeal.
On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that
the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt so
far as offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is
concerned because the prosecution case was that Hoshiar
Singh was taken away by the accused and after 15/20 minutes
gun shots were heard. However, the post mortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased found that there were only
lacerated wounds. There was no gun shot wound on the body
of the deceased. Hence, some doubt is created in the
prosecution version regarding the charge under Section 302
IPC whose benefit will go to the accused. Thus the
appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt on that
charge and consequently they are acquitted of charge under
Section 302 IPC.
However, we are of the opinion that the appellants are
guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
because admittedly a gun shot was fired at Baggar Singh
which hit him in the leg. On that count we award the
sentence of the period already undergone by the appellants.
The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to
the extent stated above. The Appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
On 14.09.2007 this Court had ordered that the sentence
of imprisonment imposed on the appellants shall remain
suspended during the pendency of the Appeal provided each
of them furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-
(Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the sum of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction
of the trial court. Their bonds are discharged accordingly.
.......................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)
........................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 03, 2011.