Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.T. Thomas and R. P. Sethi, JJ.—Appellant was first accused in a case before a designated court. There were two more accused along with him, one was his brother and the other was his father. They were acquitted, but Appellant was convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act, 1987, T.A.D.A.). On the first count, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and on the second count, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. As this appeal was filed u/s 19 of the T.A.D.A., Appellant has a statutory right to maintain this appeal.

We heard Ms. S. Janani, advocate in extenso. Mr. Udai Kumar, advocate for the State of Punjab wanted some more time to produce the translated copies of the depositions but Ms. S. Janani, advocate argued with reference to the evidence in this case and we felt that it would not be fair to adjourn the matter as the Appellant is continuing in jail.

The prosecution case relates to an episode which happened on 31.7.1990. During the said period, there was great turbulence in the State of Punjab, T.A.D.A. was enforced to contain the terrorists activities. According to the prosecution, P.W. 7 (Jarnail Singh) Sub-Inspector of Police, on getting information that terrorists were being harboured in the house of the Appellant, proceeded to that house with a posse of police personnel during the wee hours of the day. P.W. 7, father of the Appellant was woken up (who was arraigned as A-3 in the trial court) from whom the police officer knew that some other persons were on the upstairs of the building. He, therefore, rushed to that place and found the Appellant, his brother (A-2-Amar Singh) and another terrorist who was a proclaimed offender. P.W 7 immediately signalled to his police force to encircle the house, so that, any bid for escape by the terrorist could be prevented. A-2 Amar Singh fired at P.W. 7 with one AK-47 and he sustained injuries thereby. Appellant-Manjit Singh fired at P.W. 7 with a country made pistol/revolver (it is not clear as which was the one out of the two categories of firearms used by the Appellant). The said firing hit P.W. 7 Jarnail Singh on his shoulder, etc. Appellant was arrested from the same place and others escaped. Appellant had sustained injuries as the police force fired at him in self defence.

There can be no doubt that P.W. 7 had sustained firearm injuries. This is spoken to by P.W. 3 (Dr. B. D. Gupta) who examined P.W. 7. In fact the defence also could not dispute the fact that P.W. 7 sustained those injuries. He narrated the above prosecution version with all details. P.W. 5, a Head Constable (Harbans Singh) who too was in the force which reached the house of the Appellant had given full details of the occurrence.

The trial court accepted the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 5 and found that prosecution has proved the case against Appellant beyond any doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

However, the designated court was not persuaded to convict the second accused (Amar Singh) and A-3 (Mohinder Singh), accordingly they were acquitted.

Ms. S. Janani, learned Counsel contended that the evidence of P.W. 7 is too insufficient for basing the conviction against the Appellant. She highlighted mainly three points in support of her contention. First was that no independent witness had been examined by the prosecution to support the police version. Second is that the pistol/revolver said to have been used by the Appellant was not subjected to ballistic analysis. The third, which we also thought to be a forceful argument, is that on the same evidence the designated court found A-2 (Amar Singh) not guilty.

Dealing with the last contention, we also felt that the acquittal of A-2 was not on sturdy grounds. But as the State of Punjab did not prefer any appeal against that acquittal, it is not proper on our part to say anything more about the said acquittal. But benefit of that acquittal cannot be given to the present Appellant.

Regarding the first point highlighted by the learned Counsel, we have to observe that the incident happened during the wee hours of the day and no independent witness could be expected at that time to be present in a house where terrorists were feared to have been harboured. It is also a fact that in the condition which prevailed in Punjab during those years, no independent person would dare to go and stand as a witness for any terrorist activity. Hence, the mere fact that the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 5 (Head Constable) was not further supported by any other independent person is not a ground to brush aside the otherwise sturdy evidence of those two police officers.

We do not know whether the firearm was subjected to ballistic analysis. We accept the stand of the defence that the same has not been sent for ballistic tests. Nonetheless the fact remains that P.W. 7 himself was shot at by somebody at close quarters and P.W. 7 was the most competent person to say who that person could be. When P.W. 7 pointed at Appellant as the assailant, there is no reason to disbelieve him.

According to us, the prosecution proved the case against the Appellant beyond any doubt. Hence, the conviction passed on the Appellant is only to be maintained, and we do so. At the same time, we are mindful of the improvement in the situation in Punjab and hence, we are inclined to give some amelioration to the Appellant in the matter of sentence. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to imprisonment for five years in respect of both counts. Sentence on both counts will run concurrently. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.