Dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Aug 2017CR.A/451/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an acquittal for attempted murder and unlawful possession of arms, the High Court upheld the lower court's order confiscating the appellant's firearm. Despite the acquittal based on accidental discharge due to intoxication, the court found the appellant unfit to keep the weapon due to the risk to society.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the order of confiscating the gun stands affirmed.

Jasbir Singh Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 451 of 2012 Reserved on: 19.07.2017 Decided on: 01.08.2017

¶3

__________________________________________________________ Jasbir Singh

¶4

…..Appellant Versus ……Respondent

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶6

___________________________________________________ Coram_

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶8

____________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

¶9

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

¶10

The present criminal appeal, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been maintained by the appellant/who was the accused before the learned Court below (hereinafter to be called as “the accused”), against the judgment, dated 31.10.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 10/2011, whereby the learned

¶11

Court below while acquitting the accused, under Sections

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

¶14

307 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act, has confiscated the gun of the accused, bearing No. 1452 alongwith cartridges and hold that the accused is not a fit person to keep such weapon.

¶15

The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 01.10.2010, at about 8:30 p.m., Kanta Devi was cleaning utensils in the courtyard of her house and her husband-accused was taking meal, in the meantime, accused asked her wife to bring green chilly from the nearby kitchen garden, to which she refused and on this, the accused started quarreling with her wife and gave beatings to her. Thereafter, the accused brought his gun from the room and shot her wife on her neck, due to which, she sustained injuries. After the said occurrence, Kanta Devi was taken to the Hospital by her mother-in-law with the help of local people. The incident was reported to the Police by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Ambota and the Police party, headed by ASI Jasbir Singh, reached at the spot. The brother of the injured gave statement to the Police under Section 154 Cr.P.C, on the basis of which, FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections, 307 IPC and 27 of Indian Arms Act. During the investigation, spot map was prepared and blood

¶16

¶17

sample, DBBL gun alongwith six live and one empty cartridge were taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned Court below.

¶18

Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned Court below, vide impugned judgment dated 31.10.2011, acquitted the accused, however the gun of the accused, bearing No. 1452 alongwith its cartridges was confiscated and learned Court below has hold that the accused is not a fit person to keep such weapon. Hence the present appeal.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the learned Court below has acquitted the accused, but the order of confiscating the gun of the accused is against the facts, which has come on record, hence the order passed by the learned Court below is required to be set aside and the gun alongwith cartridges,

¶21

¶22

is required to be given to the appellant. on the other hand learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the learned Court below has acquitted the accused only on the basis of suspicion in the prosecution story and because

¶23

the wife of the accused had gone hostile, otherwise prosecution has proved that the accused has fired gun and his wife could only be saved, as the injury was caused to the portion of her neck.

¶24

To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses.

¶25

Puran Chand, brother of the injured, while appearing in the witness box, as PW-1, has deposed that her sister was married to the accused about 15 years ago and she has four children. He further deposed that on 01.10.2010, he received telephonic message that her sister sustained injuries and thereafter he alongwith Surjeet Singh and other relatives reached at her sister’s village, where he came to know that his sister was taken to Hospital at Hoshiarpur. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that after the occurrence, the accused has shown remorse and he assured the injured that he will never

¶26

¶27

repeat such kind of act in future. He has admitted that the accused had licensed gun. He has also admitted that when he reached at the house of his sister, only then he came to know that she sustained injuries, due to gun shot. He has admitted his signatures on memo Ext. PW-1/B, vide which, DBBL gun, No. 1472, alongwith six live and one empty cartridges was taken into possession.

¶28

PW-2, Kumari Sunali, daughter of the accused and injured has feigned ignorance about the alleged incident. She has also denied portion A to A, A to C and C to C and deposed that she did not made her statement before the Police.

¶29

PW-3, Kamal Kumar, Pradhan of Gram

¶30

Panchayat, Amobta, has deposed that on 01.10.2010, at about 9:00 p.m., he received telephonic message at the house of Jassi that one person has sustained injuries with gunshot. He admitted that after informing the Police over telephone, he went to the house of the accused, where he came to know that the accused has shot her wife with gun. He has also admitted that the Police came to the spot in his presence and took into possession the gun, six live and one cartridges, vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. He has further deposed that the Police have also taken into possession blood

¶31

¶32

stained dupatta and soil. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on memo, Ext. PW-1/C. However, he has denied to have gone through the contents of memo, Ext. PW-1/C, before signing the same. He has identified photographs, mark A-1 to mark A-4. He admitted his signatures on an application produced by the accused for renewal of gun licence, which was taken into possession by the Police, vide memo, Ext. PW-3/A. He has further admitted that gun, Ext. P-1, was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B.

¶33

PW-4, Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, in his examination-in-

¶34

chief, has deposed that on an application, Ext. PW-4/B, moved by the Police, on 01.10.2010, he conducted the medical examination of Kanta Devi and issued MLC, Ext. PW-4/A. He has further deposed that the injured was not got x-rayed, despite advise, however, according to the Police summary, she was treated in private hospital at Hoshiarpur and opined injuries to be simple in nature. In his cross-examination, he admitted that injuries on the person of Kanta Devi were not dangerous to life and are possible if somebody falls carrying loaded gun on surface and trigger of gun accidently pressed.

¶35

PW-5, Kanta Devi, injured, has deposed that her

¶36

¶37

husband-accused does not take liquor and denied the case of the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she denied that on 01.10.2010, her husband gave beatings to her and shot her with gun. However, she admitted that when she was cleaning the utensils, her husband was going to the fields to protect maize crop with loaded gun. She has further admitted that due to darkness, her husband lost his balance and fell down with loaded gun and trigger of the gun was accidently pressed, which hit her on her ear.

¶38

PW-6, Kusum Lata and PW-7, Sulakshna Devi, stated to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence, have also resiled from their previous statements and were got declared hostile.

¶39

PW-8, Yash Pal, has proved on record, application moved by the accused for renewal of gun licence, Ext. PW-8/A and memo, Ext. PW-3/A, vide which the same has been taken into possession. PW-9, Constable Rajesh Kumar, on receiving telephonic call regarding incident, entered the same in daily diary, Ext. PW-9/A, which bears his signatures. PW-10, Constable Dharam Pal, has deposed that he deposited three parcels containing gun, live cartridges and one empty cartridge, sealed with seal impression ‘S’ at FSL, Junga, vide RC No. 167/2010, which

¶40

¶41

were handed over to him by MHC Ram Saroop and he returned RC to him on 14.10.2010.

¶42

PW-11, HC Ram Saroop, on 02.10.2010, has received statement of Puran Singh, Ext. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext. PW-11/A was registered and made endorsement, Ext. PW-11/B on ruka. He also received six parcels sealed with seal ‘S’, containing DBBL gun, six live and one empty cartridges, blood stained dupatta and blood stained soil, which he entered into register No. 19. On 12.10.2010, vide RC No. 167/10, except parcel containing belt, he handed over all the parcels to Constable Dharam Pal for chemical examination, who returned RC after deposited articles on 14.10.2010. He proved copies of RC Exts. PW-11/C and PW-11/D. On 24.11.2010, he has received case property after chemical test alongwith FSL report, Ext. PW-11/E, which he handed over to the Investigation Officer.

¶43

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the case property was not scaled in his presence, neither his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is on the Court file. PW12, SI Mohinder Singh, has prepared the challan.

¶44

PW-13, Surjeet Singh, has feigned ignorance

¶45

about this case. He has denied that he remained associated with the investigation of this case and that the

¶46

¶47

accused shot her sister to kill her. He has admitted his signatures on memo, Ext. PW-1/B, vide which, gun, cartridges and belt were taken into possession. He has also admitted his signatures on memo, Ext. PW-1/C, vide which, Police have taken blood stained soil from the spot. He has denied portions A to A, A to C & C to C of his statement recorded by the Police. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Police have obtained his signatures later on, on blank paper.

¶48

PW-14, ASI Jasbir Singh, deposed that he has received telephonic information from Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Ambota about the incident and on the basis of which, rapat No. 44(A), Ext. PW-9/A was entered, thereafter, he alongwith Police party reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Puran Chand, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR, Ext. PW-11/A. He further deposed that he prepared the spot map, Ext. PW-14/A, took into possession gun, live cartridges, belt and empty cartridge vide memo, Ext. PW1/B, in presence of the witnesses and these articles were packed in sealed parcels, sealed with seal ‘S’. He also took into possession blood stained dupatta , Ext. P-10 and blood stained soil, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/C. Further he has

¶49

10 -

¶50

recorded statements of the witnesses, moved application, Ext. PW-14/F for medical examination of the injured as well as accused and obtained MLCs of Kanta Devi, Ext. PW-4/A and the accused Ext. PW-4/B. He also recorded supplementary statement of Kamal Kumar, Ext. PW-14/J, got clicked photographs of the spot Ext. PW-14/K to Ext. PW14/N and took into possession application, Ext. PW-8/A produced by the accused vide memo, Ext. PW-3/A and thereafter handed over case file for remaining investigation to ASI Susheel Kumar. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not cite ASI Susheel Kumar as witness. He denied that trigger of the gun was accidently pressed. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot there were many people and he only recorded statement of Kamal Kumar, Pradhan. He has denied that he prepared wrong site plan or clicked wrong photographs of the spot.

¶51

In the present case, though the wife-injured has gone hostile, but it is correct that gun was fired by the accused in intoxicated condition. However, injured-wife, in her cross-examination has deposed that her husbandaccused was going to the fields with loaded gun to protect maize crop from the animals and as it was dark outside, her husband lost his control, due to which trigger of loaded gun

¶52

11 -

¶53

was accidently pressed which hit her, but it is on record that the accused was carrying gun, under influence of liquor and also found over talking irrelevantly, smelling heavily alcohol and even sustained three injuries on his person as mentioned in his MLC. There is every possibility that the accused can commit such offence, under the similar circumstance in future and which will not be in the interest of justice of the society, as well as family members of the accused. In these circumstance, this Court finds that the order, passed by the learned Court below, confiscating the gun of the accused, requires no interference and the same is after appreciating the facts, which has come on record to its true perspective.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

¶55

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶56

1^st August, 2017

¶57

(raman)

Jasbir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Vs Sham

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Hp

Aarif Vs State of Hp

State Vs Muni Lal

Hrtc Vs Madan Lal

Lal Chand Vs Birbal