9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1357-SB of 2007 whereby the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani in Sessions Case No. 21-RBT of 2006 dated 23.04.2007 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced the appellant-Manoj as under:- Under Section 307, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red Satender was sent for treatment at Government Hospital, Bhiwani. After preliminary treatment, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. 4. On 23.08.2005 the injured Satender gave his statement (Exh. DA) stating that on 10.08.2005 he was brought to the District Court, Bhiwani as under trial in the murder case of one Ramesh Masta. After his attendance in the court he was heading towards judicial lock-up with PW-11. On reaching the gate of the court PW-11 saw Pawan Masta alias Munna S/o Ramesh Masta and Rohtash Sharma (father-in-law of Ramesh Masta) and a boy who was standing in front of them. All the above three pointed towards Satender saying he is the same boy. On this, the fourth boy present with them fired three shots at Satender (PW-7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and 3 years rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. The sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively on the ground that the accused Manoj was a previous convict for committing an identical offence and in the present case, he has committed a very heinous crime of shooting in the court premises and thus, it was ordered that the sentences imposed on him shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ergone almost six years of imprisonment. He also contended that as per the law laid down by this Court the punishment and sentence for offences under a single transaction should have run concurrently and that in the present case, the firing incident pertains to a single FIR, and that the courts below failed to understand that the consecutive sentences awarded in the present case are disproportionate to the facts. The learned senior counsel for the appellant further contended that the courts below failed to consider the settled legal position and also the provisions of Section 31 of Cr.P.C. and the decision in Chatar Singh v. State of M.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 37] wherein it was observed that in a sentence for conviction for several offences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by him for one count of offence will, in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other counts as well. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has sought to justify the impugned judgment contending that the High Court on re-appreciation of evidence on record has rightly concurred with the findings of fact recorded on the points raised and not interfered with the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the same does not call for interference by this Court. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The ground on which the appellant was awarded the sentence which was to run consecutively was due to the previous criminal rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
