Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.958 AND 959 OF 2004  

Karamjit Singh                ... Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab           ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment  

and  order  dated  26.3.2003  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Appeal  

Nos.160-SB and 161-SB of 1990 by which the High Court has  

dismissed  the  appeals  filed  by  the  appellant  against  the  

judgments and orders of the Sessions Judge dated 3.5.1990  

passed in Sessions Case No.71 of 1988 wherein the appellant  

stood  convicted  under  Section  307  IPC  and  sentenced  to  

undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and

in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for one year and in  

Sessions  Case  No.  81  of  1989,  wherein  appellant  stood  

convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to  

undergo RI for one year.  However, the High Court reduced the  

sentence  u/S  307  IPC  from  three  years  to  one  year  but  

enhanced the fine from Rs.1500/- to Rs.15,000/-.  Both the  

sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals  

are that on 24.6.1987 at about 9.00 A.M. Tasbir Singh (PW.2),  

an Inspector in a Cooperative Society, was going on his bicycle  

towards his house in Darsh Nagri Malout.  When he reached  

near the main entrance on the G.T. Road, a Maruti car driven  

by Karamjit Singh appellant came from behind and passed by  

the side of Tasbir Singh.  After covering some distance the car  

stopped.  Tasbir Singh again passed by his side of that car and  

when he had reached about 100 yards ahead of the car,  it  

came from behind and hit the cycle of Tasbir Singh.  When  

Tasbir  Singh(PW2)  made  a  complaint  to  Karamjit  Singh  

appellant about the incidents, he replied that he would do the  

2

same again.  Tasbir Singh (PW2) then went to his house and  

met his friend Gurmit Singh Brar.  From there, Tasbir Singh  

(PW2) alongwith Gurmeet Singh Brar went to village Saranwan  

Bodla where he is married.  Tasbir Singh(PW2) told his father-

in-law  Chattarpal  Singh  about  the  incident  as  Chhattarpal  

Singh  was  closely  related  to  Mohinder  Singh,  father  of  

Karamjit Singh, appellant.  Harjinder Singh (PW3), Parshotam  

Singh(PW4) sons of Chattarpal Singh were also there.  They all  

five went to the Focal Point of Village Katianwali just to lodge  

complain against the conduct of Karamjit Singh appellant to  

his  father  Mohinder  Singh.   Mohinder  Singh  and  Karamjit  

Singh were present in the office of Cooperative Society at that  

time as both of them were employed there.  Chhattarpal Sigh  

made a complaint to Mohinder Singh about the behaviour of  

Karamjit  Singh appellant and this resulted into exchange of  

hot words between the two.  Karamjit  Singh appellant then  

asked  Chhattarpal  Singh  to  take  Tasbir  Singh  (PW2)  from  

there otherwise he would be dealt with properly.  Thereafter,  

Karamjit Singh appellant went to his nearby residence in his  

Maruti  car  and  came  back  within  five  minutes  having  his  

3

licensed .12 bore gun.  It is alleged that on instigation by his  

father Mohinder Singh, Karamjit Singh, appellant fired a shot  

at  Tasbir  Singh(PW2).   Mohinder  Singh  also  took  out  his  

revolver and aimed the same at Tasbir Singh.  The shot fired  

by Karamjit Singh hit Tasbir Singh in his abdomen and nearby  

area.   Thereafter,  Karamjit  Singh  fired  another  shot  hitting  

Harjinder Singh and Parshotam Singh PWs.   In the meantime  

Pippal Singh son of Mohinder Singh who also reached there  

was given a “Chhura” blow by Harjinder Singh.  Gurmit Singh  

intervened  and  rescued  these  persons.   Injured  were  then  

taken  to  Civil  Hospital,  Malout  where  they  were  medically  

examined.   On the same day, statement of Tasbir Singh(PW2)  

was recorded by ASI Ram Singh PW.6 in Civil Hospital, Malout  

on the basis of which the formal FIR was recorded.  The I.O.  

started  the  investigation  and  Karamjit  Singh  appellant  was  

arrested in this case on 2.7.1987.  A .12 bore gun and two  

cartridges of point .12 bore were also taken into possession by  

the  Investigating  Officer  through  separate  recovery  memos.  

The  Investigating  Officer  recorded  the  statements  of  

prosecution witnesses. On completion of the investigation, the  

4

present  appellant,  his  brother  Pippal  Singh  and  father  

Mohinder Singh were challaned.  

3. After committal proceedings, Karamjit Singh was charged  

under Section 307 IPC whereas Mohinder Singh and Pippal  

Singh were charged under Section 307/34 IPC. Karamjit Singh  

appellant was challaned separately in a case of Arms Act and  

was charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act in that case.

4. The trail court disbelieved the plea taken by the Karamjit  

Singh  appellant  of  self-defence  and  convicted  him  for  the  

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and acquitted the  

other two accused vide judgment and order dated 3.5.1990.  

However, Karamjit Singh was awarded three years R.I. and to  

pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine to  

further  R.I.  for  one year.   It  was further  directed that after  

realizing  the  said  fine  it  may  be  given  to  the  complainant  

Tasbir Singh, Parshotam Singh and Harjinder Singh in equal  

shares.  So far as the case against the appellant under Section  

27 of the Arms Act was concerned, he was convicted under  

5

Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded the punishment of  

one year.  However, it was held that both the sentences under  

Section 307 IPC and under Arms Act will run concurrently.   

5. Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant  preferred  two  appeals  

before  the  High  Court  which  have  been  disposed  of  vide  

impugned judgments and orders dated 26.3.2003 in Criminal  

Appeal  No.160-SB of  1990 and 161-SB of  1990.   The High  

Court  rejected  the  contentions  raised  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant that it was a case of self-defence and concurred with  

the  findings  recorded by the  trial  court  and held  that  the  

appellant  was  rightly  convicted  for  the  offences  punishable  

under Section 307 IPC. However,  the sentence was reduced  

from  three  years  to  one  year  but  the  amount  of  fine  was  

enhanced  from Rs.1500/-  to  Rs.15,000/-  and  in  default  of  

payment of fine he would undergo R.I. for one year.  So far as  

the appeal under Section 27 of the Arms Act was concerned, it  

was dismissed.  However, the High Court directed that both  

the sentences will run concurrently.  Hence these appeals.  

6

6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Arvind  K.  Nigam,  learned  senior  

counsel  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  Kuldip  Singh,  learned  

counsel for the State and perused the record.

7. The  facts  are  not  in  dispute.   The  first  trial  incident  

occurred on 24.6.1987  at about 9.00 A.M. when appellant hit  

the bicycle of Tasbir Singh PW.2 by his Maruti  Car and on  

being asked, the appellant had told him that he would do it  

again.  In view of the fact that Shri Chhattarpal Singh father-

in-law of Tasbir Singh was closely related to Mohinder Singh  

father of Karamjit Singh, they came to lodge a complaint to  

Mohinder  Singh  and  it  appears  that  some  hot  words  were  

exchanged at that time and the appellant went to his house in  

his Maruti car and came back within five minutes having his  

licensed .12 bore gun and fired a shot at Tasbir Singh PW.2  

which  hit  Tasbir  Singh  in  his  abdomen  and  nearby  area.  

Thereafter, Karamjit Singh fired another shot hitting Harjinder  

Singh and Parshotam Singh PWs.   

8. PW.1 is  Dr.  Lakhbir  Singh.  He on 24.6.1987 at  11.00  

7

A.M. had examined Parshotam Singh son of Chhattarpal Singh  

and found the following injuries:-

“1. Lacerated  wounds  three  in  No.  placed  individually  over  the  front of  right  thigh  in its  lower  1/1/3  measuring 0.2 x 2 in size.   No wound of exit.   Blackening,   scorching or tattooing.   Fresh bleeding present.   Advised x- ray.   

2. Lacerated  wound  0.2  x  .4  cm.  with  inverted  margins  over  lateral  aspect  of  right  foot  in  its  middle.   No  wound of exit.  No blackening, scorching or tattooing.  Fresh  bleeding present.  Advised x-ray.  

3. Lacerated wound .2 x .3 cm. over medial aspect   of  left  thigh  in  its  lower  1/3rd.   No  wound  of  exit.   No  blackening,  scotching  or  tattooing.   Fresh  bleeding  was   present.  No wound of exit.  Advised x-ray.  

4. Lacerated wound 2 in No. measuring .2 x .2 cm.  on  front  of  left  chest  in  its  lower  part.   No  blackening,   scorching or tattooing present.  Fresh bleeding was present.   No wound of exit.  Advised x-ray.  

5. A lacerated wound measuring .2 x 1.1/5 cm. over  lateral  aspect  of  chest.   No  wound  of  exit.  No  blackening,   scorching,  tattooing  was  present.  Fresh  bleeding  present.  Advised x-ray.  

6. Lacerated wound .2 cm. in diameter on the right   side  of  forehead,  1.1/5 cm.  above  the  right  eye brow.  No  wound of exit.  No blackening, scorching or tattooing present.   Fresh bleeding present.  Advised x-ray.  

7. Lacerated  wound  .2  cm.  in  diameter  on  the   middle  phalanx  of  right  index  finger  on  its  lateral  aspect.   Advised x-ray.  No wound of exit.  No blackening, scorching or  tattooing present.  

8. Lacerated  wound  0.2  cm.  in  diameter  on  the  terminal  phalanx  of  left  thumb  on  its  medial  aspect.   No   wound of exit. No blackening, scorching or tattooing present.   Fresh bleeding present.  Advised x-ray.”

8

9. According  to  this  witness  injuries  on  the  person  of  

Parshotam  Singh  were  caused  by  a  fire  arm  within  a  few  

hours.  However, all the injuries were declared simple after x-

ray examination.  This witness has further deposed that on  

the same day at 11.15 A.M. he had also medically examined  

Tasbir Singh and found the following injuries:-

“1. Lacerated  wound  0.2  x  0.2  cm.  with  inverted  margins over right side of abdomen just below the lowest rib.   Fresh bleeding present.  Advised x-ray.   

2. Lacerated  wound  0.2  cm.  in  diameter  with   inverted  margin  in  middle  of  abdomen,  4  cm.  above  the   umbilicus.  Advised x-ray.  

3. Lacerated  wound  0.2  cm.  in  diameter  with   inverted margins 5 in No. individually placed on the front of   right thigh.  Advised X-ray.  

4. Lacerated wound 0.2 x 0.3 cm. two in No. with   inverted  margins  individually  placed  over  medial  aspect  of  right thigh, 18 cm. apart. X-ray advised.  

5. Lacerated wounds 0.2 cm. in diameter 15 in No.   on the anterior-medial aspect of right leg.  X-ray advised.  

6. Lacerated wounds 0.2 cm. x 0.2 nine in No. on  the anterior-medial aspect of right foot with inverted margins.  

7. Lacerated wound 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm., eight in No.  individually  placed  with  inverted  margins  on  the  anterior- medial aspect of left thigh and left knee joint.  Advised X-ray.  

8. Lacerated wound 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. eleven in No.   on the front of left whole leg with inverted margins.  Advised  x-ray.  

9. A lacerated wound 0.2 cm. x 0.3 cm. over lateral   aspect of left leg, just below knee joint. Advised x-ray.  

9

10. A  lacerated  wound  0.2  cm.  x  0.4  cm.  on  the  medial aspect of left leg in its upper 1/3rd.  Advised x-ray.  

11. Lacerated wounds 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. 7 in No. with   inverted margins individually placed over dorsum  of left foot.  Advised X-ray.”  

10. These  injuries  were  also  opined  as  fire  arm  injuries  

within  a  few  hours  and  were  declared  simple  after  x-ray  

examination.  

11. In the cross case all  the  five  accused including Tasbir  

Singh (PW.2) and Harjinder Singh (PW3) were charged under  

Section 324/34 IPC and different trials were held in all  the  

three  cases.   In  the  said  case,  the  trial  court  came to  the  

conclusion that only Harjinder Singh was guilty of the offence  

under  Section  324  IPC  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  

3.5.1990 in Sessions case No.28 of 1989.  He was found guilty  

for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  324 IPC and was  

sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of  

Rs.1000/-.   In default  of  payment of  fine,  he shall  undergo  

further R.I. for six months.  In appeal filed by Harjinder Singh,  

the High court vide its judgment and Order dated 26.3.2003 in  

10

Crl.  Appeal  No.  166-SB of  1990,  maintained  the  conviction  

and sentence, but granted benefit under the provisions of the  

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

12. The  trial  court  rejected  the  theory  of  private  defence  

taken by the appellant observing that Tasbir Singh had come  

with his father-in-law Shri Chhattarpal Singh and his brother-

in-law  Harjinder  Singh,   Parshotam  Singh  and  his  friend  

Gurmit  Singh  Brar  only  to  lodge  a  protest  and  not  as  

aggressions.  The trial court observed as under:-

“There is no evidence of any previous enmity between them.  Consequently, there was no reason for the prosecution side at   attack the accused side.  The minor incident which took place   on the morning of 26.6.87 could not prove a motive for attack   by  all  these  five  persons  on  the  accused  as  alleged.   Therefore,  the  prosecution  version  that  the  witnesses  had  come to village Katianwali only to remonstrate with Mohinder  Singh accused against the conduct of Karamjit Singh accused  appears  to  be  correct.   It  appears  that  when  these  people   went to Mohinder Singh and started remonstrating with him  against the conduct of Karamjit Singh, he felt ill and in a huff  went to his house and brought his gun and started firing on  these persons injuring them.  It appears that injury to Pippal   Singh  was  given  by  Harjinder  Singh  afterwards  in  anger.   Consequently, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused  to these persons by Karamjit Singh accused in the exercise of   the right of private defence.  Therefore, the defence plea fails   and is hereby rejected.”

13.  The other co-accused  had been acquitted by the trial  

11

court recording the finding that there could be no intention for  

them to participate in the incident.  More so there had been  

some serious contradictions in the depositions in respect of  

their participation in the incident.

14. The High Court also rejected the plea of right of private  

defence  concurring  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  trial  

court and observing as under:-

“There is no doubt that the parties are related to each other   and  there  is  no  previous  enmity  between  them.   A  minor  incident had taken place on 24.6.87 at 9 AM.  For this reason,   it  is  not  understandable  that  Harjinder  Singh,  Parshotam  Singh and Tasbir Singh along with other two persons would  go to the office of Mohinder Singh (since acquitted) or Karamjit   Singh appellant  for the purpose of  attack.   The prosecution  version as set-up that Harjinder Singh etc. had gone to village   Katianwali  only  to  complain  to  Mohinder  Singh  about  the  conduct of  Karamjit  Singh appears to be absolutely  correct.  As  is  clear  from the  evidence  that  Chhattarpal  Singh,  the   father-in-law of  Tasbir  Singh  is  nearly  related  to  Mohinder  Singh father of the present appellant and this was the reason   that Tasbir Singh along with his in-laws went to the office of  Mohinder Singh.  Karamjit  Singh appellant  fell ill  when the  complainant side started remonstrating with Mohinder Singh  against his conduct and then he immediately left the spot and  brought  his  double  barrel  gun  from his  house  and  started   firing on these persons hitting Tasbir Singh, Harjinder Singh  and Parshotam Singh.  It  is true that Pippal Singh has also  received injury in this  occurrence and this  injury cannot be  self-suffered  but  it  appears  that  this  injury  was  given  by  Harjinder Singh in anger.”

15. The  High  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  Karamjit  

12

Singh  had  fired  two  shots.  The  first  shot  caused  injury  to  

Tasbir  Singh  PW2  while  the  other  shot  caused  injury  to  

Parshotam Singh and Harjinder Singh PW3 and held that the  

trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section  

307 IPC.  

16. We have gone through the depositions made by all  the  

witnesses.  Each of them had been cross-examined at length  

but nothing could be elicited from either of them which may  

shake the prosecution case.  In view thereof, we do not find  

any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the  

appellant  and  the  appeal  No.958  of  2004  is  liable  to  be  

dismissed.  

17. In Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2004 under the Arms Act,  

Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant  

has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 27 of  

the  said  Act,  conviction  of  the  appellant  was  totally  

unwarranted.  Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Standing Counsel for  

the State has opposed the contention  submitting that there  

13

has been amendment in the said provisions immediately after  

the date of ocurance of offence in the instant case.  The case is  

to  be  decided  taking  into  consideration  the  unamended  

provisions.

18. Section 27 at the relevant time i.e. on the date of incident  

read as under:

“27. Whoever has in his possession any arms or ammunition  with  intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to   enable any other  person to use the same for any unlawful   purpose  shall,  whether  such  unlawful  purpose  has  been  carried into effect or not, be punishable with imprisonment for   a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with   both.”

19. The said provision simply provided that a person even if  

was in possession of a licenced gun or a weapon and use it for  

“unlawful purpose”, he would be liable to punishment.  The  

said provision of Section 27 stood amended subsequent to the  

date of incident.  Therefore, the case is to be examined under  

the unamended provisions of the Act.  Thus, the contentions  

raised  by  Shri  Nigam  in  this  respect  are  not  worth  

consideration.  

20. In this view of the matter, the criminal appeal No.959 of  

14

2004 is also liable to be dismissed.

21. At this juncture, Mr. Nigam learned senior counsel has  

submitted that as it was the first offence of the appellant and  

he  has  served  part  of  the  sentence  and  a  long  period  has  

elapsed  since  the  date  of  occurrence  of  the  incident,  it  is  

desirable  that  the  appellant  may  be  granted  benefit  of  the  

provisions of  Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Sections 360  

and 361 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

22. On the contrary, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for  

the respondent has opposed the reliefs sought by Shri Nigam.  

23. In Manjappa v. State of Karnataka, JT 2007(7) SC 226,  

this Court considered the scope of grant of relief  under the  

provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of  

Probation  of  Offenders  Act,  1958  reconsidering  earlier  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  Om Prakash & Ors.  v.  State of  

Haryana,  (2001)10  SCC  477  and  held  that  such  a  relief  

should be granted where the offence had not been of a very  

15

grave  nature  and  in  certain  cases  where  mens  rea  remain  

absent as in a case of rash and negligent driving under Section  

279 read with 304A I.P.C. where the High Court itself reduces  

the sentence substantially, such beneficial provisions should  

not be given effect to.

24. In  the instant case, the High Court reduced the sentence  

from three years to one year and as the instant case is of  very  

grave nature as there had been large number of injuries, we  

are not inclined to grant leave sought to by the appellant.   

25. In view thereof, both the appeals stand dismissed.

26. The Appellant is on bail.  His bail bonds are cancelled. He  

will  be  taken  into  custody  to  serve  the  remaining  

sentence.  

…………………………….J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

16

……………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi; 6th July,  2009.

17

Digital Proforma

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal Nos. 958 & 959 of 2004

2. Date of decision : 6.7.2009

3. Cause Title : Karamjit Singh vs.

State of  Punjab

4. Coram : Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 26.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered : Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by

7. Nature of Judgment : Non-reportable whether reportable

18