Judgment:
Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB of 2003 Date of decision 16.01.2013. Uttam Singh and others ...... Appellants. versus The State of Punjab ..... Respondents. Present : Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate for appellants Uttam Singh and Jang Singh. Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Hundle, Advocate for appellant-Mohinder Singh. Mr. S.S.Chandumajra Sr. DAG, Punjab. Criminal Appeal No.1687-SB of 2003 Amarjit Singh ...... Appellant. versus The State of Punjab ...... Respondent. Present : Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.S.Chandumajra Sr. DAG, Punjab. Criminal Appeal No.2415-SB of 2004 Balwant Singh ...... Appellant. versus Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
2. The State of Punjab ...... Respondent. Present : Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Advocate Amicus Curiae for appellants. Mr. S.S.Chandumajra Sr. DAG, Punjab.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. K.C.PURI, J.By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB of 2003 titled as Uttam Singh and others versus The State of Punjab ; Criminal Appeal No.1687 -SB of 2003 titled as Amarjit Singh versus The State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No.2415 -SB of 2004 titled as Balwant Singh versus The State of Punjab as the same have arisen out of the same incident/FIR. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB of 2003 titled as Uttam Singh and others versus The State of Punjab.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that all the accused in the present case along with absconding accused Balwant Singh and Madan Lal alias Maddi on 21.7.1997 at about 4.00p.m. have made preparations for dacoity. The accused were in possession of truck bearing registration not CIF 98.bearing fake registration number and were possessing stolen Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
3. property i.e. 1435 fans and 18 electric motors on 21.7.1997 and 30.9.1997 and were alleged to have forged certain documents which the registration certificate and number plate of truck not CIF 98.and committed offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 399, 402, 411 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short – the IPC).
3. It has been alleged that Inspector Nirmal Singh, the then SHO of Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar prepared a ruqa on the basis of secret information received by him that accused Mohinderpal Singh @ Teetu of Jalandhar, accused Madan Lal @ Maddi (proclaimed offender) of Delhi, accused Uttam Singh of U.P. and accused Amarjit Singh @ Sharma of Phagwara road Kot Kalan are holding a truck with fictitious number plate not DL-IG-1315, the number of the truck was originally CIF 98.and it was alleged that electric fans which they had stolen and some valuable articles have been loaded by them and they were coming for committing a high way dacoity/robbery and were making preparations and if raid is conducted they could be apprehended. Therefore, Inspector Nirmal Singh, after completing formalities conducted raid at the stated place and apprehended four persons namely Balwant Singh, Jang Singh @ Jangi, Uttam Singh and Amarjit Singh @ Sharma while they were sitting in the aforesaid truck. Accused Mohinder Singh and Madan Lal ran away from the spot. Inspector Nirmal Singh, conducted the personal search of accused and recovered one kirpan from the possession of Jang Singh accused and 12 bore pistol duly loaded along with cartridges was recovered from the possession of accused Uttam Singh. The kirpan was taken into possession. Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
4. Pistol and cartridges were also taken into possession. The accused were arrested. Site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented for trial of the accused. Accused Balwant Singh was declared proclaimed offender but later on he was arrested and tried. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide order dated 15.11.2000 committed the case for trial before the learned Sessions Judge as the offence alleged against the accused were exclusively triable by the said court.
4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 399, 402, 411, 468 and 471 of the IPC against the accused/appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ASI Som Nath (PW-1), Inspector Nirmal Singh (PW-2), Sarbjit Singh (PW-3), ASI Rupinder Singh (PW-4), ASI Hussan Lal (PW-5), ASI Pardeep Singh (PW- 6), Mohan Lal (PW-7), ASI Jalwant Singh (PW-8), Lakhbir Singh (PW-9) and closed the prosecution evidence.
6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded their false implication. Accused Uttam Singh stated that he has not committed any offence. Mohinder Singh has a plot No.174 in Mastyer Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. He had dispute with Swarna Singh real brother of Buta Singh Ex Home Minister of India and the said case was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar against Mohinder Singh. Accused was helping Mohinder Singh Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
5. against Swaran Singh and he was picked up by police from his house and kept in illegal custody and then a false case was planted upon him. Similar plea was taken by his co-accused Mohinder Singh and Jang Singh. The version of accused Amarjit Singh @ Sharma is that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated due to his friendship with his co-accused Mohinder Singh and Jangi. The accused examined Harbans Singh DW-1, Jogesh Sharma, DW-2 and Mohinder Singh appeared as his own witness and proved his application Ex.DX.
7. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as narrated in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.7.2003. Therefore, the appeal preferred by Jang Singh stands dismissed as infructuous.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of the conviction, the present appeals have been directed by the appellants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Jang Singh has submitted that as per custody certificate Jang Singh son of Parkash Singh appellant has already undergone the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
10. So, counsel for the accused/appellant Jang Singh has stated at the Bar that his appeal may be dismissed as having been become infructuous. So, the appeal of appellant Jang Singh stands dismissed as having become infructuous.
11. Appellants-Uttam Singh son of Mangal Singh have undergone incarceration for a period of eight years, seven months and twenty two days Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
6. out of the substantive sentence of ten years imposed under Section 399 of the IPC. As per conviction slip Amarjit Singh alias Sharma son of Satnam has undergone incarceration for a period of eight years three months including remissions. So, their counsel have not pressed the appeal on merits but have submitted that the case is pending before this Court for the last more than fifteen years. They have already undergone substantial part of the sentence and pryer has been made for reduction in their sentence.
12. I have considered the said submission.
13. Appellant Uttam Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of eight years, seven months and twenty two days as on 12.12.2011 Baldev Singh has undergone incarceration for nine years eight months and thirteen days and Balwant Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of nine years four months and thirteen days, Amarjit Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of eight years three months including remissions. So, all these appellants have undergone sufficient long period and they are facing trial for the last 15 years. So, the end of justice would be met in case their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. I ordered accordingly.
14. Out of the five accused only Mohinder Singh has challenged the conviction. As per conviction slip Mohinder Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of three years, one month and twenty four days and he absconded for a period of one year and three months and nineteen days and on that account it seems that remissions have not been granted to him in the conviction slip. Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
7. 15. Counsel for Mohinder Singh has submitted that Lakhbir Singh cannot be said to be an independent witness as according to the prosecution his truck was stolen. The prosecution has not been able to prove how he reached at the spot. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
16. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
17. In the present case, there are six accused and out of the six accused one of the accused namely Madan Lal @ Maddi has been declared as proclaimed offender. The remaining five accused have been convicted. Lakhbir Singh is no doubt is the owner of the truck whose number plate has been changed but the trial Court has rightly held that he is an independent person. He has clearly stated that he came to Jalandhar in connection with search of his truck. So, his presence is natural., The stolen truck and fans were recovered from the accused.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that according to the case of the prosecution fans were recovered from the house of Harbans Singh. Said Harbans Singh has been produced as defence witness and has stated that no recovery has been effected from his house. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
19. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
20. It is very easy to win over such a witness.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery and as such the Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
8. prosecution story is doubtful.
21. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
22. The trial Court has rightly held that Lakhbir Singh is a resident of Hanumangarh and he has no axe to grind against appellant Malkiat Singh and the appellant. So, the above said argument is without any merit.
23. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mohinder Singh is facing trial for the last more than fifteen years. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 399 of the IPC which is highly excessive. The prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.
24. I have carefully considered the said submission.
25. Mohinder Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergone rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months. He is facing trial for the last more than fifteen years. The end of justice would be met in case the sentence imposed under Section 399 of the IPC is reduced to the period of seven years instead of ten years as awarded by the trial court. The sentence of fine imposed under Section 399 and the remaining sentence imposed under Sections 402 and 411 of the IPC including the fine stand affirmed. However, all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention during the period of investigation, trial or after appeal shall be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment already imposed. Criminal Appeal No.1485 -SB o”
9. 26. In the manner indicated above, all the appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
27. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 16, 2013 sv