Tarlochan Singh @ Rana vs The State Of Punjab

REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2018

Tarlochan Singh @ Rana …….Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ……..Respondent

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dt.27.02.2017

passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred

to as ‘High Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-1033-DB of 2011, whereby

the High Court set-aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under

Section 120-B IPC, however the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of

the Appellant under Sections 29 & 30 Arms Act whereby the Appellant was

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 29 of the

Arms Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 30 of the Arms

Act.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2007 on receipt of a Signature Not Verified

telephonic message regarding the death of one Gurdeep Singh (hereinafter referred Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2022.04.20 17:29:04 IST Reason: 1 to as ‘deceased’), Inspector Pritam Singh, PS Sadar Rupnagar (hereinafter

‘Investigating Officer/ IO’) reached the spot and recorded the statement of one

Smt. Sukhjit Kaur (A3), W/o deceased Gurdeep Singh wherein she stated that she

was married to deceased on 13.12.2005, after the marriage the deceased returned to

Dubai where he worked as a Truck Driver, leaving her to live in her matrimonial

home with her mother-in-law. The deceased returned to India on 01.08.2007 and on

03.08.2007 she along with deceased went to her paternal home at Village

Kishanpura, the next day both of them went to Gurudwara Solkhian Sahib on her

brother’s bullet motorcycle bearing No. PB-12-F-3805, thereafter, while returning

she asked the deceased to stop near a bush on the outskirt of Village Bahman Majra

so she could relive herself, once she was back the deceased told her that two men

had come on a motorcycle from Village Singh, one of them was carrying a long

barrel rifle, they approached him but on seeing some villagers coming they went

back. Subsequently, on 10.08.2007 at around 11.30 AM Sukhjit Kaur and the

deceased were returning after meeting her maternal grandmother at Village

Hafizabad, on the way Sukhjit Kaur’s dupatta got entangled in the motorcycle’s

wheel, to remove it the deceased stooped and bike and while Sukhjit Kaur was

removing the dupatta from the wheel a mosquito entered her eye, in that moment

2 two men approached the deceased and one of them shot the deceased dead. By the

time Sukhjit Kaur turned, the assailants had escaped.

3. Based on Sukhjit Kaur’s statement the police recorded FIR No. 119/2007

under Section 302 of IPC and Section 24 of Arms Act. The Sr. Superintendent of

Police, Rupnagar had reached the spot and the deceased’s mother, Smt. Bhupinder

Kaur, had identified the body of her son, whereafter, one Jit Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of

Village Allaur, told the IO that the murder had been committed by Sukhjit Kaur in

connivance with her friend/lover Gurpreet Singh @ Titu and one Sukhjinder Singh,

the same was affirmed by the deceased’s mother. Thereafter, on 12.08.2007 Jit

Singh and one Ranjit Singh produced Sukhjit Kaur, Gurpreet Singh @ Titu and

Sukhjinder Singh before the IO, who arrested them, Jit Singh further informed the

police that Gurpreet Singh and Sukhjit Singh had admitted to be in love with each

other and all three accused had admitted their guilt before him. While in police

custody accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu gave a disclosure statement that he had

kept concealed an empty cartridge/shell hidden under some bricks in the farm

house in Village Sanana, thereafter the accused led the police to the spot for the

recovery of the same. Subsequently, during the course of interrogation the accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu suffered another disclosure statement while in custody,

wherein he stated that he had kept concealed the Double Barrel 12 bore Gun at his

3 farm house in Village Sanana, about which only he knew, the same was recovered

and siezed by the police at his behest. Later the Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu

stated that the gun belonged to the appellant, on further investigation by the IO, it

was found that the gun used in the murder of deceased was licensed on the name of

the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and in his disclosure

statement dt.15.08.2007 he told the police that he had kept the gun license for the

Double Barrel 12 bore gun in his house which only he knew about, thereafter, the

appellant took the police to his house and got recovered the license.

4. Thereafter, post completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet

before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar who committed the case to

the Court of Sessions, Rupnagar as the offence under Section 302 of IPC is

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge finding a prima

facie case charged the accused as under:

Name of Accused Charged Under Section Gurpeet Singh @ Titu Section 120-B & 302 IPC Section 27 Arms Act Sukhjinder Singh Section 120-B IPC Section 302 R/w 34 IPC Sukhjit Kaur Section 120-B IPC Section 302 R/w 34 IPC Tarlochan Singh (Appellant) Section 120-B IPC

4 Sections 29 & 30 Arms Act

The accused, including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined twenty-eight (28)

witnesses and all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, but

they denied the allegations, both the accused Gurpreet Singh and appellant denied

having made any disclosure statements or any recovery effected from them,

however the other two accused persons did not take a specific plea. The Trial Court

convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

Name of Convict Offence Sentence Awarded Sukhjit Kaur U/s 120-B IPC Rigorous Imprisonment

(RI) for life and fine of

Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for

one year.

U/s 302 IPC read with RI for life and fine of

Section 34 IPC Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for

5 one year. Tarlochan Singh @ U/s 120-B Rigorous Imprisonment

Rana (RI) for life and fine of

Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for

one year.

U/s 29 & 30 Arms Act RI for three years and

RI for six months

respectively.

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu U/s 302 IPC Imprisonment for life

and fine of Rs. 5000/-

and in default of

payment of fine to

undergo RI for one year.

Rigorous Imprisonment

U/s 120-B IPC (RI) for life and fine of

Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

6 fine to undergo RI for

one year.

Imprisonment for seven

U/s 27 Arms Act years and fine of Rs.

2000/- and in default of

payment of fine to

undergo RI for six

months. Sukhjinder Singh U/s 120-B IPC Rigorous Imprisonment

(RI) for life and fine of

Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for

one year.

U/s 302 IPC read with RI for life to pay fine of

Section 34 IPC Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for

one year.

7

6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Criminal Appeal bearing No. D-1-33-DB-

2011 before the High Court, challenging the Trial Court’s order of conviction and

sentencing. The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 29 &

30 of the Arms Act as the prosecution successfully established that appellant was

the license holder of the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle, used in the murder of

deceased by accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, by verifying the records of the issuing

authority. Furthermore, the license had been recovered and seized by the police at

the appellant’s behest, whereas the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle (murder weapon)

had been recovered by the police at the behest of Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu.

7. However, with regard to the appellant’s conviction under Section 120-B IPC,

the High Court found that the police had arrested the Appellant under Sections

25,27,29 & 30 of the Arms Act only and offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B

IPC were neither alleged nor proved against the appellant by the prosecution, and

thus Trial Court had wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant in this regard.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appellant’s appeal to the extent of

acquitting him from the offence under Section 120-B IPC, however it upheld the

conviction of the appellant under Sections 29 & 30 Arms Act, directing the CJM,

Rupnagar to take the appellant into custody to make him undergo the remaining

part of the sentence.

8

8. Being aggrieved by the High Court order, the appellant has preferred the

present appeal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the

crime had been committed without the knowledge of the appellant, as the Accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu had illegally taken the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle from

the co-owned farmhouse of the appellant and Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, post

which he used the said rifle in committing the murder.

11. It is further submitted that although the appellant was the license holder for

the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle, he had not willingly parted with his rifle and he

had no part in the conspiracy hatched by the other co-accused . The High Court

while acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 120-B IPC had

observed that the appellant couldn’t have willingly handed over his licensed rifle to

the Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu for committing the murder, in contravention of

the license rules under Arms Act.

9

12. On behalf of the Respondent State, The Deputy Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Rupnagar, filed written submissions by way of an affidavit stating that the

appellant was the license holder of the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle used by the co-

accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu in the murder, it was the implied duty of the

appellant, being the license holder, to keep said fire arms in safe custody so that no

one can use or remove the same illegally.

13. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the State further contends that the

appellant did not lodge any complaint for the theft of the fire arm, which shows his

negligence in the handling of the said fire arm, Furthermore, the appellant has not

placed on record any document or evidence confirming the fact that the Farm

House in Village Sanawa, was in fact a co-owned property of the appellant and the

co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu .

14. Pursuantly, the Counsel for the appellant has placed on record the

Jamabandi of the farm land/farm house in Village Sanawa, District Ropar which

conveys that the farmhouse was jointly owned by the appellant and accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu. The Appellant’s counsel further states that though the Trial

Court had asked the defence and prosecution to place proof of the co-ownership of

10 the farm house, the appellant unaware of the importance of the said document

failed to file it before the Trial Court, due to which the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that the appellant had willingly handed over the gun to co-accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu and was a co-conspirator.

15. Having gone through the record of the case and having considered the entire

facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove

that the appellant had willingly handed over the fire arm to the co-accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Titu in connivance with him to murder the deceased, so as to

convict him under Section 29 of the Arms Act. Even though the High Court has

acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC,

upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 29 and 30 of the

Arms Act.

16. Section 29 of the Arms Act reads as under :-

“Section 29- Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same.―Whoever―

(a) purchases any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition from any other person knowing that such other person is not licensed or authorised under section 5; or

11

(b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 [three years, or with fine, or with both].

17. In the light of the prosecution story, the appellant could have been charged

with Section 29(b) but only after it was established by the prosecution that he

delivered the fire arm to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, knowingly and

deliberately. There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the fire arm was

handed over to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh by the appellant. On the contrary, it

appears that the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu illegally took the licensed fire

arm of the appellant without his permission and knowledge and used the said

weapon to murder the deceased. Admittedly, the fire arm in question was kept in

the farm house which was co-owned by the appellant and co-accused Gurpreet

Singh and was taken away from there by co-accused Gurpreet Singh illegally and

without permission of the appellant.

18. This being the factual position, the appellant cannot be charged with Section

29 of the Arms Act and his conviction by the High Court under the said Section is

12 not liable to be sustained and the impugned judgment of the High Court to that

extent is hereby set aside.

19. Once the appellant stands exonerated from offence under Section 120-B IPC

by the High Court and Section 29 of the Arms Act by us on the ground that the

prosecution failed to establish that the fire arm was parted by him knowingly and

willingly and that it was taken away without his knowledge by the co-accused and

used in the commission of an offence, there appears to be no justification to

convict and punish the appellant even under Section 30 of the Arms Act. Section

30 of the Arms Act reads as under :-

“Section 30- Punishment for contravention of licence or rule. -

Whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [six months], or with fine which may extend to [two thousand] rupees, or with both.”

20. Since there is no evidence to establish any willful violation by the appellant

of any of the conditions of the Act or conditions of a licence or any provision of the

13 Act or any rule, he is liable to be exonerated from the offence of Section 30 as

well.

21. In view of the facts and discussions, this appeal stands allowed and the

impugned judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Sections 29

and 30 of the Arms Act is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges

against him.

.......................................,CJI (N.V.RAMANA)

...........................................,J (KRISHNA MURARI)

...........................................,J (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI;

March 29, 2022

14