Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab
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 I PC,
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 unde r
Section 30 of the Arms Act.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2007 on
receipt of a telephonic message regarding the death of one Gurdeep
Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), Inspector Pr itam 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 retu rned to
Dubai where he worked as a Truck Driver, leaving her to li ve in her
matrimonial home with her mother-in-law. The deceased returne d 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 as ked the
deceased to stop near a bush on the outskirt of Village Bahma n Majra
so she could relive herself, once she was back the deceas ed 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
963
deceased stooped and bike and while Sukhjit Kaur was removing the
dupatta from the wheel a mosquito entered her eye, in that moment 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 F IR
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. Ther eafter, 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 accuse d 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 farm house in Village Sanana, about wh ich
only he knew, the same was recovered and siezed by the poli ce 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 arreste d and in his
disclosure statement dt.15.08.2007 he told the police that he had k ept
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 polic e filed
charge sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, R upnagar
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 ac cused as
under:
TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
The accused, including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
5. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution exa mined
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 d isclosure
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:
965
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 ar rested 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. Accordi ngly, 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. Being aggrieved by the High Court order, the appellant ha s
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 appella nt
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 farmho use of the
appellant and Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, post which he used the
said rifle in committing the murder.
TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
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 f rom the
offence under Section 120-B IPC had observed that the appellant couldn’t
have willingly handed over his licensed rifle to the Accused Gu rpreet
Singh @ Titu for committing the murder, in contravention of the license
rules under Arms Act.
12. On behalf of the Respondent State, The Deputy Superintendent
of Police (Rural), Rupnagar, filed written submissions by w ay 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 furt her
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 defenc e and
prosecution to place proof of the co-ownership of 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 c ame 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 havi ng
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
967
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, u pheld 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 suc h 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
(b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the posses sion of
another person without previously ascertaining that such
other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any othe r law
for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibi ted by
this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the
same; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term whic h
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-acc used
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 not liable to be sustained and t he impugned
judgment of the High Court to that extent is hereby set aside.
TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
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 t aken
away without his knowledge by the co-accused and use d 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 a ny
provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for w hich
no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act sha ll 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 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.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.