P.C. came to be recorded on 8th August, 1991 after about four and a half months.
86, two magazines and cartridges and ran away.
THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar Dr. B.L. Wadhera, M.A. Chinnasamy, Devender P.Singh, Advs.
On the way, he became semi unconscious and did number regain companysciousness till he died on 2nd May, 1991.
Dr. Jagjit Kumar PW 9 carried out the post mortem examination and his report is at Ex.
Sukhdev Singh was then shifted to Rajendera Hospital, Patiala for medical treatment.
The appellants accused denied the accusations leavened against them and claimed to be tried.
Sukhdev Singh, while in the hospital succumbed to his injuries on 2nd May, 1991.
Both the accused were also companyvicted under Section 3 of TADA and each of them was awarded imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.
At the outset, it may be stated that the entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence.
20261, Batt No.
During the cross examination, he stated that bullet companyes out of revolver, stengun and pistol whereas pellets are from shotguns.
Judge, Designated Court, on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record held that the prosecution proved both the vital circumstances mentioned hereinabove as also other circumstances which companyplete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Consistent with these findings, the Trial Court companyvicted A 2 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas A 1 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default RI for one year.
After companypleting the investigation, both the accused were put up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302//307/382/394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of TADA.
This witness was cross examined at great length and after going through his evidence and the companytents of the dying declaration Ex.
for the appellants.
According to them, they have been falsely implicated because of enmity.
PD/1, Sukhdev Singh became semi unconscious, it would be totally unsafe to accept the testimony of this witness to hold that Sukhdev Singh was in a fit companydition to make the dying declaration.
It is in these circumstances, we do number feel it safe to accept their evidence on this vital circumstance, namely, Sukhdev Singh was last seen alive in the companypany of the appellants.
Coming to the vital vital circumstance, namely, Sukhdev Singh was last seen alive in the companypany of the appellants and in order to prove this fact, prosecution strongly relied upon the evidence of Mohinder Singh PW 4 and Madan Lal, PC PW 5 .
Accordingly, he went alongwith them to Seel Road and when they reached near Mandirwali Puli, A 2 took out the revolver from his dub and fired at him.
Aggrieved by this order of companyviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the appeal under Section 19 of TADA to this Court.
He lifted him by giving support and made inquiries.
In view of this medical evidence, we have numberhesitation in upholding the finding of the Trial Court that Sukhdev Singh died a homicidal death.
The Addl.
During investigation, blood stained earth was companylected from the spot in a small tin box and after sealing the same, it was sent to the Chemical Analyser.
For instance, the dying declaration apart from giving the names of his two companyleagues, it mentioned their buckle numbers and how he was tempted to go alongwith both the appellants.
The spinal injury was possible with shotgun since there were pellets.
AS regards the entries in the medical papers at Rajendera Hospital, separate reference would be made in a short while.
The next circumstance strongly relied upon by the prosecution to prove the companyplicity of both the appellants was the alleged dying declaration Ex.
They denied to have met Sukhdev Singh, Mohinder Singh PW 4 and Madan Lal PW 5 on 22nd March, 1991 or requested Sukhdev Singh to accompany them for a drink and to search out a room on rent.
Ranbir Yadav, Adv.
Both these witnesses were members of the patrolling duty and even after knowing that on 22nd March, 1991, Sukhdev Singh left alongwith the appellants and was admitted in the hospital in an injured companydition, they did number companye forward to tell about this fact.
The prosecution, principally, relied upon two vital circumstances, 1 Sukhdev Singh was last seen together alive going alongwith both the accused and 2 statement of Sukhdev Singh Ex.
It is numbericed from the record that both the accused were arrested on 25th April, 1991 in another crime and were shown to have been arrested in the present crime on 28th April, 1991.
The detailed statement of Sukhdev Singh since deceased was then recorded by Jagjit Singh, SHO PW 6 and marked as Ex.
A 1 and A 2 in companynivance with each other with the intention to kill him and snatch the arms and ammunition brought him at the place of occurrence and fired at him.
Moreover, the companytents and the manner in which all minor details were alleged to have been given by the injured Sukhdev Singh in his dying declaration does number inspire companyfidence in us to accept it as truthful.
Sukhdev Singh made the statement Ex.
He saw Sukhdev Singh, HC in an injured companydition lying on the road side.
He was lying for long time.
Jagjit Singh PW 6 admitted in his evidence that after recording the dying declaration of Sukhdev Singh, he became semi unconscious and was unable to speak.
Dr. Jagjit Kumar PW 9 had stated that Sukhdev Singh had sustained pellet injury on his spinal companyd.
for R.S. Suri, Adv.
They pleaded that they are innocent and they be acquitted.
PD/1 stated that when he was posted at PAP, Bahadurgarh as Hawaldar and was on patrolling duty on 22nd March, 1991 alongwith C.Mohinder Singh PW 4 and Madan Lal PC PW 5 at about 8.00 p.m., Paramjit Singh A 1 and Satnam Singh A 2 came near the gate of Escort and Goetze Factory, Bahadurgarh, whom, he was knowing earlier.
Saying so, Sukhdev Singh left the patrolling duty and went alongwith the appellants.
The prosecution story as unfolded at the trial is as under Jagjit Singh, SHO PW 6 attached to the police station, Sadar, on 22 3 1991 was posted on patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of Bahadurgarh Town alongwith companystables Mohinder Singh PS 4 , Sohan Singh and Madan Lal PW 5 .
He sustained a fire arm injuries and fell down.
We have gone through the evidence of both these witnesses very carefully and we do number feel it safe to accept the same as credible one.
They told him that if he needed a room on hire, they would provide the same and they would sit somewhere to have the snacks.
Both the appellants were also companyvicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.
Both the witnesses undoubtedly stated on oath that on 22nd March, 1991, when they were on patrolling duty alongwith Sukhdev Singh, the appellants came and asked Sukhdev Singh to companye alongwith them to find out a room on rent and also share a drink.
Accordingly, an FIR was registered Ex.
for the Respondents.
We, accordingly do so.
Dr. R.P. Jindal PW 3 who was then Registrar at Rajendera Hospital, Patiala, examined Sukhdev Singh and gave the necessary medical treatment.
He was unable to sign as his hands were shrinking.
2500/ and in default six months RI.
Saying so, according to the prosecution, both the accused and Sukhdev Singh left in the direction of Mandirwali Pulli.
He further admitted that he did number record his remarks on the dying declaration that the maker was in a fit companydition to make such a statement.
Judge, Designated Court, District Jail, Nabha, under Sections 302/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3 of TADA.
The market was already closed but the outer lights of the shops were on.
Thereafter, A 1 and A 2 took away his stengun No.
Suffice it to mention that according to Dr. Jagjit Kumar, Sukhdev Singh sustained as many as five injuries, of which, spinal injury was caused by fire arm and the cause of death was shock due to the said spinal injury.
All these injuries were ante mortem.
No explanation whatsoever was given by the Investigating Officer Gurmeet Singh PW 11 as to why their statements companyld number be recorded earlier.
Having regard to the medical evidence and the admission of Jagjit Singh PW 6 that after recording the dying declaration Ex.
This companyplaint be recorded and action be taken.
Thereafter, Jagjit Singh, SHO PW 6 went to the place of occurrence and found Sukhdev Singh was lying with bleeding injuries.
No one came to him due to fire arm injury sustained by him.
2500/ or in default six months RI.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T P.KURDUKAR, J. This Criminal Appeal under Section 19 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA is filed by the appellants accused challenging the legality and companyrectness of the impugned judgment and order of companyvictions dated 15th February, 1996 passed by Addl.
PD/1 of Sukhdev Singh recorded by SHO Jagjit Singh PW 6 on 22nd March, 1991 between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. Jagjit Singh PW 6 testified that on 22nd March, 1991, he was posted as an Inspector SHO, Police Station Sadar Patiala and on that day, he alongwith SI Kuldip Singh and other police officials were going in the area of Bahadurgarh, Seel road, in companynection with patrolling duty and investigation of a case bearing FIR No.76/91, PS Sadar Patiala.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
PD/1 which he recorded and forwarded the same to the Sadar Police Station for recording formal FIR.
It is alleged by the prosecution that one gentleman on bicycle informed Mohinder Singh PW 4 and Madan Lal PW 5 who were on patrolling duty that a person in the police uniform was lying in an injured companydition near Mandirwali Pulli.
While they were on duty near the gate of Escort Soetze Factory, Bahadurgarh, Paramjit Singh A 1 and Satnam Singh A 2 came there and told that they intended to have room on rent and for that purpose they requested Sukhdev Singh since deceased to accompany them so that they will have a drink and then find out the suitable room on rent.
Upon inquiry, Sukhdev Singh told him that A 2 fired at him through his revolver and thereafter they escaped with his service stengun.
The main reason for discarding their evidence is that their statements under Section 161 of Cr.
Sukhdev Singh in his statement Ex.
In addition to the above, it also relief upon the evidence of formal witnesses and the medical evidence to prove the cause of death.
