Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Harpreet Singh And Another vs State Of J&K on 30 July, 2021
Sr. Nos. 235 & 236
After Notice
THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 30.07.2021
IA No. 01/2017 in
CRA No. 44/2017
&
IA No. 01/2017in
CRA No. 43/2017
AND
CONF No. 9/2017
CRA No. 40/2017
IA No. 01/2017
CRA No. 41/2017
IA No. 2/2017
CRA No. 44/2017
IA No. 01/2017
CrlM No. 971/2021
CrlM No. 972/2021
Harpreet Singh and another .....Appellants
Through :- Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate.
v/s
State of J&K ......Respondent
Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
::: :
ORDER
30.07.2021
Per:- Puneet Gupta-J
IA No. 01/2017 in CRA No. 43/2017 &
IA No. 01/2017 in CRA No. 44/2017
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 43/2017 and Criminal Appeal No. 44/2017
are filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order
dated 12.12.2017. The applications filed for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail in both the appeals are, therefore, taken up together
IA No. 1/2017 in CRA No. 44/2017
for consideration. The appellants, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh alias
Parveen and Gurdeep Singh, have been convicted for commission of
offence under Section 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of
payment of fine they are to further undergo imprisonment of the like
nature for a period of one year. The appellant, Harpreet Singh alias
Sunny, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life under Section 302 RPC and fine of Rs.50,000/-.
He is also convicted for commission of offence under Section 3/25
Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, the appellant is also to undergo further imprisonment as
mentioned in the order of sentence. The trial court has also convicted
the two other accused in the case for offence under Section 302 RPC
and separate appeals have been filed by them.
2. The objections to the applications stand filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-convicts has also
filed brief synopsis in support of his arguments. The learned counsel
for the appellants during the course of arguments has mainly referred
to the statements of the eye witnesses in the case who are close
relations of the deceased, Harpreet Singh alias Babbi. The learned
counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of
the eye witnesses to the occurrence though closely related to the
deceased person. The conduct of the said eye witnesses is unnatural
and their statements do not, therefore, inspire confidence. The other
argument is that the statements of these eye witnesses have been
recorded long after the alleged occurrence and there is no plausible
IA No. 1/2017 in CRA No. 44/2017
explanation for the same. Lastly it is argued that the names of the
appellants do not figure in the FIR.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has
controverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is
submitted that the judgment is well reasoned and the trial court has
taken care of all the aspects of the case while deciding the case. No
case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
applicants herein.
5. FIR No. 160/2009 came to be registered with Police Station, Satwari
under Section 302 RPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act on the
information received through reliable sources that one Harpreet Singh
has been shot dead on the intervening night of 26/27 November, 2009
by some person/persons and the dead body is lying on the road at Rani
Bagh near Mahindra Body Builders Workshop. The report was initially
filed with the Police Post on the said information and thereafter the
aforesaid FIR came to be lodged with the concerned Police Station.
The applicants herein along with two other appellants Gurdev Singh
and Ravinder Singh are alleged to have killed the victim after the
victim was dragged from the auto. The appellant, Harpreet Singh, is
alleged to have fired the shots upon the victim which resulted into the
death of the victim. The assailants, who had come on motorcycle and
van, fled away from the place of occurrence after the commission of
crime. It may be mentioned herein that PWs-Gian Singh, Mst.
Mohinder Kour and Mst. Paramjeet Kour are father, mother and sister
of the deceased respectively and are eye witnesses to the occurrence.
6. The conduct of the eye witnesses is unnatural on the spot as they
neither touched the body of the victim nor made any attempt to save
IA No. 1/2017 in CRA No. 44/2017
the victim and therefore raises the strong suspicion about their
presence on the spot is what is pleaded by the learned counsel for the
appellants. The trial court has gone through this aspect of the argument
in detail while passing the judgment. The trial court has given reasons
for not disbelieving the presence of the eye witnesses on spot. The
court cannot while considering the prayer of the appellants herein in
the present application give any final verdict on this aspect of the case.
However, the court after going through the judgment is not persuaded
to allow the prayer in the applications on this plea of the appellants.
7. The other argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that there was
considerable delay in recording the statements of the above said
witnesses in terms of Section 164-A Cr.P.C and no plausible cause was
shown for such delay during the course of trial. Again, the trial Court
has recorded its findings on this aspect of the case. The learned counsel
is not able to impress upon the court that the view taken by the learned
trial court on this aspect of the case is palpably unreasonable and
unjust keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the FIR does
not mention the name of the accused persons though the eye witnesses
claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel for the other
side has submitted that it is apparent from the record that the FIR came
to be lodged on reliable sources and therefore there was no question of
recording of the names of the eye witnesses in the FIR. The perusal of
the judgment reveals that the trial court has taken note of this aspect of
the case also and recorded its finding on the same.
9. The Court while dealing with the present applications is not required to
fathom the credibility of the statements of the witnesses as the same is
IA No. 1/2017 in CRA No. 44/2017
to be analyzed at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The
prosecution has earned the conviction in the case after full-fledged
trial. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants do not make out
a case for grant of bail in the present case which relates to commission
of offence under Section 302 RPC which without saying is a very
serious offence.
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the role of
the appellants, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh and Gurdeep Singh,
entitles them to the relief prayed for in the applications. Of course, the
role attributed and proved against the appellant, Harpreet Singh, is of
firing the gun shots on the victim which resulted into the death of the
victim. The court is not convinced that the appellants can claim relief
in the applications as matter of right in view of their role during the
course of occurrence.
11. No case is made out for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants-applicants herein. The applications are dismissed at this
stage. It is made clear that any observation made in the order is
confined only to the disposal of the present applications.
(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
30.07.2021
Pawan Chopra
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.07.31 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
