2000 (3) TMI 1114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder.
2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder.
3. Conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
4. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Compliance with preconditions for applicability of Section 299 CrPC.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder:
The Appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC, based on the finding that he shot at Surat Singh, Desh Raj, Lehna Singh, and Ramesh with his sten gun, resulting in their deaths. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC, and found no infirmity in the conviction, concluding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder:
The Appellant was also found guilty under Section 307 IPC for injuring 12 other persons with the intention of killing them. The conviction was based on the same set of statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC. The High Court upheld this conviction, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the findings, affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC.

3. Conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act:
The Appellant was convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which was also upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court did not find any error in the High Court's judgment regarding these convictions, affirming the same.

4. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The conviction was primarily based on the statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 299 CrPC. The Appellant contended that these statements could not be used as evidence since the prosecution did not establish that the deponents were dead. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 299 CrPC and Section 33 of the Evidence Act, concluding that the preconditions for using such statements as evidence must be strictly complied with.

5. Compliance with preconditions for applicability of Section 299 CrPC:
The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the preconditions for using the statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC. The High Court had found that the witnesses were dead based on the process server's reports and the trial court's records. Although the Sessions Judge did not record a specific order to this effect, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 299 CrPC. The Court concluded that the statements were rightly admitted as evidence, and the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Court held that the statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC were admissible, and the prosecution had complied with the necessary preconditions, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.