9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent of Police. There was no dispute about the time, date and place of incident. Nor there was any dispute that Assistant Sub-Inspector Gumam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh died as a result of shooting from the service revolver by the Sub-Inspector Ajaib Singh. The dispute, mainly, was whether the incident took place as stated by the prosecution and the shooting and killing by the respondent was unwarranted, unjustified and deliberate or it was, as claimed by the respondent, in exercise of right of private defence. The respondent was tried and convicted underSection 302 for committing murder of ASI Gumam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh and sentenced by the trial judge to undergo life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. His co-accused Balbir Kumar was tried under Section 302 but convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurts to constable Jit Ram, P.W. 10, and Channan Singh, P.W. 13. He was directed to be released on probation. Another accused constable Jit Singh was acquitted of all charges. The State did not file any appeal e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utedly left the place immediately after the incident. Another important finding recorded by the trial judge was that the version of the origin of the incident, as given by the accused, was acceptable in preference to one put forward by the prosecution. The trial judge did not believe that the deceased was caught hold of by Balbir Singh and Jit Singh and thereafter the respondent fired the shot. Nor did it find any truth in the version of the prosecution that Paramjit Singh was thrown down on the ground by Bzabir Singh and Jit Kumar and then a shot was fired at him from point blank range by the respondent. But the conviction was based as the injuries found on the person of the respondent did not justify exercise of right of private defence. 3. The High Cowl while agreeing with the findings of the trial judge on these aspects further held that the story given by the prosecution that the deceased had gone to the spot for nakabandi for apprehending the robbers did not inspire confidence as there was no entry to that effect in the Rojnamacha (daily diary) of the Police Station, Kapurthala. The High Court held that no material was brought on record to prove the First Information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elieve the Version of prosecution that in fact the revolver of Gurnam Singh was not taken out from the holster because when the investigating officer went at the spot he found it bolted with the belt inside the woollen overcoat. The High Court consequently was of the opinion that the act of shooting was within the scope of ClausesI and II of the exception as contained in Section 100 of the IPC and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to acquittal. 4.When this appeal was heard carlier, late Sri R.K. Garg, the senior counsel who appeared for the respondent in absence of Sri Virender Kumar, the learned senior counsel who appeared for the appellant, placed the entire record and urged that no previous enemity between the respondent and the deceased was found even by the trial judge and it was a case of mistaken identity for which it was the deceased himself who was responsible. The learned counsel had urged that even the trial Judge had found that the respondent had the right of private defence. But the conviction was founded as the deceased and his companions had used dandas whereas the respondent had used firearms. lie argued that the delay in criminal cases should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded by the High Court was perverse or palpably erroneous. He urged that the incident was of 1976 He appellant was acquitted by the High Court in 1980. In consequence of it he has been reinstated and is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He, therefore, pleaded for maintaining the order of the High Court. 6. Prior to adjudicating on the rival submissions, it appears necessary to preface it with few observations general in nature but vital according to us. Although crime never dies nor there should be an sympathy for the criminal, yet human factors play an important role and reflect advertently or inadvertently in the decision making process. In this appeal there is a time lag of more than eighteen years from the date of incident and nearly fifteen years from the date of acquittal and its hearing. By any standard it is shocking. And this has been aggravated by still more shocking behaviour of the Government which shall be adverted later. Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. In some countries like England days are fixed statutorily for trial of cases. Keeping an accused in custody for a day more than it is ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trial Judge that the defence version that the respondent received the information from a truck passing from that direction that some persons in the police uniform were forcibly collecting money from the truck drivers whereupon the respondent reached there, challenged the deceased who did not disclose his identity rather tried to move towards the car giving an impression that he was about to run ,away whereupon the respondent rushed towards him, grappled with him and was injured with danda blows used by three companions of the ASI, it is very difficult to say, as held by the High Court, that he had not developed a reasonable apprehension that if Ewe arm was not used he was himself likely to be killed. The respondent had nine injuries. They have been found not to be self- inflicted. He was attacked by the deceased and his compan- ions. The Trial Judge found that there was no previous enmity. The submission that the respondent was not entitled to use firearm as he was attacked by dandas only cannot be accepted. That is not what is provided for by clauses (1) and (11) of Section 100 of the IPC. It shall depend on facts of each case whether the assault was such as could cause reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
