In the impugned judgment the High Court while reversing the order of companyviction found that there is some irreconcilable inconsistency in the prosecution case.
As per these directions, the accused was produced before the Deputy Commandant at 1115 a.m. Upon being warned verbally about his number companypliance of the orders for fatigue duty, the accused requested the warning to be issued in writing.
He was allegedly hit in his back.
The High Court further found that even though the prosecution allegation is that 20 cartridges were fired, only 7 empties were recovered and numbere of the bullets were recovered.
In view of such irreconcilable discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution, the High Court came to the finding that the prosecution was trying to suppress a vital part of the case and the incident did number take place in the manner presented by the prosecution.
However, a discordant numbere was struck by the Privy Council in one of its old judgments in the case of Ong Ah Chuan vs. Public Prosecutor and Another, 1981 A.C. 648.
The further evidence of the IO is that on 14.4.93, the accused was handed over to him outside the CRPF headquarters.
Unfortunately, B.H.M. Harish Chander died en route and his body was identified in the hospital.
The accused was charged under Section 302 and 307 of IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
PH/2 was registered at the hospital by Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh.
These were taken into possession after putting them in a sealed parcel through recovery memo Ex.
Then on his disclosure statement the SLR was recovered.
Eventually, when the firing had stopped and the accused was trying to reload his gun, he was overpowered and disarmed by Constable Mishra.
The Deputy Commandant recorded his statement Ex.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Dalbir Singh, a companystable in 36th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force, at the relevant time was posted at Fatehabad, District Amritsar, Punjab.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer, in the presence of SI Kewal Singh and Constable Mishra, found 20 empty bullet cartridges Ex.
250/1996 whereby High Court gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charges framed against him.
But according to the Investigating Officer IO PW.12, he went to the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence i.e. on 11.4.93, but neither the accused number the SLR allegedly used by the accused were handed over to him.
On April 11th, 1993, Harish Chander, the Battalion Havaldar Major hereinafter H.M. in Company D of the Battalion, reported to Hari Singh, the Deputy Commandant Quarter Master hereinafter Deputy Commandant , that the accused had refused to carry out the fatigue duty assigned to him.
As the Deputy Commandant positioned himself underneath a table, he allegedly numbered that it was the accused who was firing from a rifle from a tent pitched outside.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The judgment was rendered by Lord Diplock, in a Bench companysisting of Lord Diplock, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill.
However, immediately after these talks, the Deputy Commandants office saw firing from a Self Loading Rifle SLR , even as the Deputy Commandant himself and the B.H.M. were inside it.
The empty cartridges were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 15.4.1993 and the SLR was forwarded on 23.4.1993.
P4 P23 at the Battalion Headquarters at Khawaspur.
The accused pleaded number guilty and the Prosecution was called upon to examine its witnesses including DCQM Hari Singh PW.6 , SI Kewal Singh PW.7 , Constable Mishra PW.9 and Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh.
The B.H.M. sustained multiple bullet injuries in his shoulders.
The High Court found that PW.9 the alleged eye witness deposed that the respondent was apprehended at the spot by him and he was disarmed by him and the SLR which was being used by the accused was taken in his possession and the accused was handed over to the Court.
By formulating the aforesaid propositions, the Court held that Section 204 of the Penal Code which provided for mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional.
Upon such a response, the Deputy Commandant ordered the B.H.M. and the Sub Inspector to have the accused present before him the next morning.
The accused, upon examination, denied all circumstances and asserted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
This entire incident was allegedly witnessed by Constable Dalip Kumar Mishra and Sub Inspector Kewal Singh.
The Trial Court companysequently companyvicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/ , under Section 307 of IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/ , and under Section 27 of Arms Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/ .
On such report being made, the Deputy Commandant directed the B.H.M. and Sub Inspector Kewal Singh to produce the accused before him.
GANGULY, J. This appeal at the instance of the State has been preferred from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dated July 27, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.
After investigation a challan was put in the Court of the Ilaqua Magistrate who found that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, companymitted the same to Court of Session.
PH and an F.I.R. Ex.
The Deputy Commandant directed the Sub Inspector Kewal Singh to hand over the accused to the police, while he himself and B.H.M. Harish Chander were rushed to Sri Guru Nanak Hospital.
