2011 (9) TMI 1198 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and Sentence u/s 307 IPC and u/s 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Identification of Assailants.
3. Alleged Contradictions between Medical and Ocular Evidence.
4. Delay in Lodging FIR.
5. Recovery of Weapons.
6. Applicability of Section 307 IPC.
7. Common Intention u/s 34 IPC.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentence u/s 307 IPC and u/s 25 of the Arms Act:
The appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.4.2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 307 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 250/- each u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

2. Identification of Assailants:
The complainant, Rajesh (PW13), identified the accused Narinder and Hargobind as the assailants. Despite it being night, the familiarity between the parties and the presence of street light negated the possibility of mistaken identity.

3. Alleged Contradictions between Medical and Ocular Evidence:
The defense argued that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular version. However, the court found that the injury could be consistent with the complainant's account of being shot while running away, thus dismissing the contradiction claim.

4. Delay in Lodging FIR:
The court found no undue delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place at 11.30 p.m., and the FIR was registered at 2.50 a.m. after the complainant was medico-legally examined and his statement recorded.

5. Recovery of Weapons:
The defense contended that the weapons recovered did not match the description given by the complainant. The court dismissed this argument, noting the delay in recovery and the possibility of the accused having exchanged or altered the weapons. Forensic evidence corroborated the use of firearms by the accused.

6. Applicability of Section 307 IPC:
The court emphasized that the intention and knowledge of the accused are crucial for conviction u/s 307 IPC, not the nature of the injury. The complainant's injury, though not fatal, was inflicted with the intent to kill, fulfilling the criteria for conviction u/s 307 IPC.

7. Common Intention u/s 34 IPC:
The court upheld the conviction of Narinder Singh with the aid of Section 34 IPC, noting that both accused acted in furtherance of a common intention to kill the complainant. The presence of common intention and mens rea was well established.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the conviction u/s 307/34 IPC and noting that the graver offense under Section 307 IPC rendered a separate conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act unnecessary.