AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
59 paragraphs · 4,810 wordsK.K. Srivastava, J.
We propose to dispose of these three appeals by this judgment.
Nirmal Singh, Harpal Singh alias Bhalla, Rajwant Singh @ Raj Pal @ Raji and Nishan Singh have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated May 10, 1994 as under :
Accused Convicted under Section Sentence awarded thereunder:
Nirmal Singh 302 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine
324/149 IPC RI for one year;
323/149 IPC RI for six months;
148 IPC RI for one year;
Harpal Singh 302/149 IPC RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months;
324 IPC RI for one year;
323/149 IPC RI for six months;
148 IPC RI for one year;
Rajwant @ Raj Pal @ Raji 302/149 IPC RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months;
324/149 IPC RI for one year;
323/149 IPC RI for six months;
148 IPC RI for one year;
Joginder Singh 302/149 IPC RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months.
324/149 IPC RI for one year;
323/149 IPC RI for six months;
148 IPC RI for one year;
Nishan Singh 302/149 IPC RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months;
324/149 IPC RI for one year;
323/149 IPC RI for six months;
148 IPC RI for one year.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The Criminal Appeal No. 219DB/1994 is directed against the judgment dated May 10, 1994, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Criminal Appeal No. 220DB/1994 filed by Nirmal Singh is directed against the aforesaid judgment, convicting him under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month. Criminal Appeal No. 221 DB/1994 filed by Harpal Singh is against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.5.1994, convicting him under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ and in default to suffer further RI for one month. These three appeals arise out of the same case and involve common questions of facts and law.
The case of the prosecution leading to the filing of these appeals, stated briefly, is as follows :
On 29.7.1991 at about 6.00 p.m., Baldev Singh (PW4) along with his brothers, Hardev Singh, Sukhdev Singh (PW 6), Jasbir Singh, Smt. Joginder Kaur wife of Baldev Singh, had come to their land, situated in village Bhangali on a tractor for agricultural operations. After finishing their work, they were sitting at their tubewell for taking tea. The informant with his wife and his brothers resided in village Dadupur and had their land situated in village Bhangali, at a distance of 1516 kilometers from Dadupur. Joginder Singh Nihang was grazing cattle in the crops standing at the plot of Baldev Singh and he was standing nearby, holding a dang in his hand. Hardev Singh asked Joginder Singh Nihang to drive away the cattle from the sugarcane field of Baldev Singh. Instead of driving away his cattle, Joginder Singh Nihang gave a lalkara saying, ''come here boys, let us teach a lesson to these Dadupurias for lodging protest every now and then''. In the meantime, accused Harpal Singh and Nirmal Singh armed with spears each, Rajpal Singh armed with a dang, Nishan Singh, grandson of Joginder Singh, armed with a dang, arrived there and they opened the attack on the complainant and his brothers sitting there. Nirmal Singh gave a barchhi blow to Hardev Singh, who raised his left hand in protecting himself and the blow landed on his left hand. Nirmal Singh gave another blow with the spear, which hit on the left hand flank of Hardev Singh, who fell down after receiving the injuries. Sukhdev Singh and Baldev Singh came forward for rescuing Hardev Singh, when Nishan Singh gave a dang blow to Hardev Singh, who had already fallen on the ground and the dang blow hit on his right shin. Harpal Singh wielded a spear blow to Sukhdev Singh on his abdomen towards left side. Nishan Singh assaulted with dang on the shoulder blades of Sukhdev Singh. Raj Pal Singh gave two dang blows to Baldev Singh, who raised his hand to save himself and the blow landed on the back of his left hand and left shoulder. Joginder Singh Nihang gave a dang blow to Baldev Singh, which hit him on his right knee. Jasbir Singh and Smt. Joginder Kaur wife of Baldev Singh witnessed the entire occurrence. Hardev Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Baldev Singh left his wife, Joginder Kaur and Jasbir Singh near the dead body of Hardev Singh and he accompanied by his brother Sukhdev Singh, reached his village Dadupur, from where Sukhdev Singh, who was also injured in his occurrence, was sent to hospital at Amritsar. Baldev Singh, due to abnormal circumstances existing at that time, remained at his house during the night. He, however, informed his father Bhan Singh and other members of his family about this occurrence.
Baldev Singh left his house in the morning of 30.7.1991 for going to the police station to lodge the report. Earlier, he had sent his fatherBhan Singh, Jasbir Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Boota Singh Sarpanch of his village Dadupur to the place of occurrence. Baldev Singh met ASI Satwant Singh of police station Majitha at busstand of Majitha. The ASI was accompanied by a constable, one SPO and one PHG in connection with patrol duty. Baldev Singh informed about the occurrence to ASI Satwant Singh, who recorded his statement (Exhibit PE) on 30.7.1991 at 6.15 a.m., and made his endorsement thereon and sent the same to the police station, Majitha, through PHG Harbans Singh. A formal FIR (Ex.PE/2) was recorded by ASI Lakhbir Singh and a case was registered against the aforesaid appellants under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC. The special report reached the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at 2.30 p.m. on 30.7.1991.
The investigating officer, ASI Satwant Singh (PW9) accompanied by complainant Baldev Singh reached the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Hardev Singh, lying in the fields of Bhan Singh. Smt. Joginder Kaur, Bhan Singh, Boota Singh Sarpanch, Jasbir Singh son of Ajaib Singh and another Jasbir Singh son of Jasmer Singh were present near the dead body. The ASI prepared the inquest report (Ex.PH) in respect of the dead body. The dead body was sent alongwith police papers for postmortem examination.
The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Satpal Garg (PW1) on 30.7.1991. The dead body was duly identified by Bhan Singh, father of the deceased, and Jasbir Singh son of Ajaib Singh. The autopsy surgeon found the following injuries on the dead body :
There was 3 cm x 1.5 cm bruise with abrasion on the front of right lower leg in its lower one/third, reddish in colour.
3 cms x 1 cm incised wound on the dorsal surface of left hand in between the index and middle finger. Clotted blood was present. On dissection this injury was 2 cm deep cutting the muscles and fracturing second metacarpal bone.
5 cms x 2 cms incised wound on the left side of abdomen in the ill of iac region, 2 cms above the left illiac crest. Clotted blood was present. On dissection, it was seen that the injury was going deep into the abdomen through muscles, peritonium mesentary, injuring left kidney, omentum and stomach. There was about 1000 cc of clotted and fluid blood. On dissection of the skull, membrance and brain were paler in colour and on dissection of the chest plueura, right and left lungs were paler in colour.
The cause of the death was due to haemorrhage and shock, caused by injury No. 3, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were noted as antemortem in nature.
Carbon copy of the postmortem report was proved as Exhibit PA. Exhibit PA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. The postmortem examination was conducted at the request of the police (Exhibit PB).
The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough siteplan (Ex.PK) with correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and searched for the accused. He went to the hospital at Amritsar and moved an application (Ex.PL) to know about the condition of injuredwitness, Sukhdev Singh. The doctor vide his endorsement (Ex.PL/1) declared him fit to make a statement. Thereafter statement of the injured was recorded. On 12.8.1991, all the accused except Nirmal Singh were produced before the Investigating Officer by Mohinder Singh of village Bhangali Kalan. The I.O. made recovery of a spear from accused Harpal Singh, who was separately challaned under Section 25 of the Arms Act also. Nirmal Singh was arrested on 17.8.1991 when he was produced by Gurpal Singh, Member Panchayat of village Bhangali Kalan and a spear was also recovered from him, for which he was also separately challaned under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After completion of the investigation, challan report was submitted against the accused, and their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions by the Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused on five counts under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Nirmal Singh and Harpal Singh. They pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and were put on trial.
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dr. Sat Pal Garg, PW 1; Dr. Daljit Singh, PW 2; Dr. Ramesh Kumar, PW 3; Baldev Singh, complainant, PW 4; Constable Sher Jagjit Singh, PW 5; Sukhdev Singh, PW 6; Dr. Harinderpal Singh, PW 7; HC Amrik Singh, PW 8; SI Sukhwant Singh, PW 9 and Rishi Ram, Draftsman, PW 10.
The learned trial Judge examined the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and recorded their statements to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. All the accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case.
The accused/appellants led evidence in their defence and examined Mukhtiar Singh, Record Keeper, Depot No. II, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, DW 1 and Ramesh Pal, Station Supervisor, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, DW 2 and closed their defence.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the prosecution evidence held that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and rather the FIR has been lodged promptly. Regarding the occurrence, he believed the occular version given by Baldev Singh (PW 4) and Sukhdev Singh (PW 6) and held them as stamped witnesses, having suffered injuries in this occurrence. Having believed the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons under various sections, as mentioned above. Hence these appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Shri P.S. Mann, Senior Advocate and Shri S.S. Randhawa, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab/respondent. We have also been taken through the evidence on record. We have also perused the judgment under appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants raised the point of delay in lodging the FIR and submitted that the participation of all the accused persons in this occurrence is highly doubtful. He urged that the delay in lodging the FIR has been used for consultations and deliberations for implicating the family of appellant Joginder Singh. The occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. at the fields of Baldev Singh (PW4), situated in village Bhangali Kalan. In this occurrence, Hardev Singh, brother of Baldev Singh (PW4) lost his life while Baldev Singh himself and his another brother, Sukhdev Singh (PW6) suffered injuries. The evidence on the record shows that there are two roads going from Dadupur to village Bhangali Kalan. The first road goes via Majitha, while the other one goes via Golowali. The road from Bhangali Kalan to Dadupur via Golowali is shorter by two miles from the road running via Majitha. The distance between the villages Dadupur and Bhangali Kalan is about 1516 kilometers and the distance between Majitha and Bhangali Kalan is about 14 kilometers. The statement of informantBaldev Singh (PW4) and his brother Sukhdev Singh (PW6) shows that they had gone to village Bhangali Kalan via Golowali. SI Sukhwant Singh (PW9), who has investigated the case, has stated in his cross examination that if a person is to go from Dadupur to Bhangali Kalan, he is to pass via Majitha, if he goes by metalled road. But there is another way, which is kachha one and Majitha does not fall on that kachha passage. He further stated that the kachha passage running between Dadupur and Bhangali Kalan is about 1213 kilometres. SI Sukhwant Singh further stated that he himself had been passing through the kachha passage while going from Dadupur to Bhangali Kalan. If after the occurrence Baldev Singh (PW4) brought his brother Sukhdev Singh, who had injuries including an injury on abdomen, via the shorter route, i.e. via Golowali, then no exception can be taken to it and the conduct of the informant cannot be said to be unnatural. Baldev Singh left the place of occurrence around 6.30 p.m. and reached his village after covering a distance of 1314 kilometers on kachha road in about 1 hours and reached Dadupur around 8.00 p.m. The time taken in reaching Dadupur from Bhangali Kalan on tractortrolley cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no doubt that if Baldev Singh had opted to return to his village Dadupur from Bhangali Kalan through the metalled road running via Majitha, then he could stop at the police station and lodge the report. But the question is whether in the circumstances, in which Baldev Singh was placed, i.e. he had lost his brother, Hardev Singh, in the occurrence at Bhangali Kalan and he had another injured brother, who had to be immediately provided with medical care, the decision of Baldev Singh in reaching his village Dadupur via a shorter route appears to be quite natural and believable. It will appear from the statement of Baldev Singh (PW4) that when he reached his village Dadupur and narrated the incident to his father and Boota Singh, Sarpanch, he was advised by the Sarpanch not go to the police station in the night to lodge the report, due to disturbed law and order situation in those days. This explanation is seriously challenged by learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that in the same disturbed conditions, Sukhdev Singh (PW6) was removed on a scooter by his brotherinlaw to Amritsar for getting treatment at the hospital there and when Sukhdev Singh could be taken in the night for treatment, then Baldev Singh could have left his village to go to Majitha police station to lodge the report. Baldev Singh (PW4) himself did not accompany his brother, Sukhdev Singh, to Amritsar for treatment of injuries of Sukhdev Singh. Baldev Singh remained at his village Dadupur and he himself did not have serious injuries. A perusal of the injuries of Baldev Singh would go to show that he had a swelling on the dorsum of left hand, having fracture of proximal phalanx of index finger of left hand; an abrasion on the top of left shoulder and thirdly, a reddish contusion on the inner side of right knee. The last two injuries were found to be simple in nature, whereas injury No. 1 was found to be grievous as a result of fracture of proximal phalanx of index finger. The Sarpanch, Boota Singh, as a matter of fact, was himself under the duty to inform the police about the incident and his advice to the contrary does not appear to be convincing. It appears that Baldev Singh was in a position to move to Majitha to lodge the report in the night itself, but he did not do so. The explanation given by Baldev Singh for not going to police station Majitha in the night to lodge the report due to disturbed conditions, does not appear to be well founded and especially when under those very conditions he had sent his brother Sukhdev Singh on a scooter, driven by his brotherinlaw, to Amritsar for treatment. There appears to be some force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the informant Baldev Singh utilized the night time for deliberations and consultations regarding implication of the accused persons in this case. The delay in lodging the report, however, by itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution evidence regarding the occurrence though the delay may be held to be utilized for implicating some of the accused falsely.
The occurrence of this case has been sought to be established by the evidence of Baldev Singh (PW4) and Sukhdev Singh (PW6). Both these witnesses are the real brothers of Hardev Singh deceased. The relationship of these witnesses with the deceased Hardev Singh puts a caution for scrutinising their testimony a bit more carefully. But the mere relationship, it is well settled, is not enough to totally discard the statements of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injuries of Baldev Singh (PW4) are such, which could be selfsuffered and in that connection, he drew our attention to the statement of Dr. Daljit Singh Uppal (PW2), to the effect that all the injuries of Baldev Singh could possibly be caused by a friendly hand and such a possibility cannot be ruled out. He has further stated that these injuries could also be selfsuffered. Baldev Singh was brought for medical examination of his injuries by one Avtar Singh son of Karnail Singh of village Mohan Bhandarian on 30.7.1990 at 4.50 p.m. and his medical examination was done at 5.00 p.m. The occurrence had taken place on 29.7.1990 at 6.00 p.m. Though the report had been lodged with the police at 6.15 a.m. on 30.7.1991, yet no police docket was issued for medical examination of the injuries of Baldev Singh. In his crossexamination, Baldev Singh has stated that he had shown his injuries to the investigating officer on the next day at the bus stand of Majitha, where he was alone at that time. SI Sukhwant Singh (PW9), who recorded the statement of Baldev Singh (PW4), did not state about seeing the injuries of Baldev Singh. He has stated in his crossexamination that at the time of recording the statement of Baldev Singh, he did not prepare any separate injury statement. The medical examination of the injuries of Baldev Singh, as mentioned above, took place about 23 hours after the occurrence and the duration of injuries mentioned by Dr. Daljit Singh Uppal (PW 2) as 24 hours cannot be said to be quite specific in view of his statement in crossexamination that the duration of the injuries can vary by six hours on either side. It appears to us that the evidence of Baldev Singh (PW4) is not worthy of being relied upon. In all reasonable probabilities, Baldev Singh did not suffer these injuries in this occurrence. The possibility of his injuries being selfsuffered or suffered by a friendly hand cannot be ruled out.
The other witness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence is Sukhdev Singh (PW6). He was medically examined by Dr. Harinderpal Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Amritsar (PW 7) and found the following injuries :
An incised stabbed wound of .5 x .5 cms in the left hypochondrium on the abdomen in the midmamry area, 8 cms below subcostal margins. Margins were clean cut. Depth were not probed.
An incised wound of 13 cms x 2 cms placed horizontally on the left side of the back, 13 cms below inferior angle of scapula. Margins were clean cut. Bleeding was present and was skin deep.
Multiple bruises with abrasions of .5 x .5 x .25 x .25 sizes were present on the right scapular area on back.
An abrasion with red base, four in number with sizes .24 x 5 cms in diameter were present in the right gluteal region.
Sukhdev Singh was examined at about 8.40 p.m. on 29.7.1991, i.e. within 2 hours and 40 minutes of the occurrence. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation, while injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were declared as simple. Injury Nos 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injury Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by blunt weapon. These injuries were caused within six hours of the time of medical examination. According to the statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW6), Harpal Singh appellant, who was armed with a spear, assaulted him while Nishan Singh appellant gave a dang blow to him on his backside. The aforesaid two accused appellants are said to have inflicted injuries to Sukhdev Singh. A perusal of the injuries of Sukhdev Singh, noted above, will go to show that injury No. 2 could not have been caused by a dang blow as the same is an incised wound with clean cut margins. Injury No. 3 is multiple bruises with abrasions present in the right gluteal region. Injury No. 4 is an abrasion with red base, four in number, present in the right gluteal region. These injuries also cannot possibly be caused by the dang blow, as stated by Sukhdev Singh (PW6). Dr. Harinderpal Singh (PW7) stated that the possibility of injuries No. 2 to 4 on the person of Sukhdev Singh being self suffered cannot be ruled out. Injury No. 1, thus, could not be said to be selfsuffered. Sukhdev Singh is, thus, an injured witness of this occurrence and his presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. He is a stamped witness of the prosecution. The other accused namely, Rajpal Singh @ Rajwant Singh @ Raji, Joginder Singh and Nirmal Singh did not cause injuries to Sukhdev Singh.
So far as Hardev Singh deceased is concerned, he was assaulted by Nirmal Singh appellant with his spear and by Nishan Singh with a dang blow, hitting on the right leg of the Hardev Singh, as per statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW6). The injuries antemortem in nature found by the autopsy surgeon on the dead body of Hardev Singh, reproduced above, would go to show that injury Nos. 2 and 3 were attributed to Nirmal Singh appellant. Injury No. 1 is bruise with abrasion on the front of right lower leg in its lower one/third, reddish in colour. According to the statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW6), Nishan Singh had given a dang blow on the right leg of Hardev Singh. Injury No. 1 does not appear to have been caused in the manner, as stated by Sukhdev Singh. The autopsy surgeon, Dr. Sat Pal Garg (PW1) has stated that injury No. 1 could be possible by a fall. It appears to be more probable that after suffering injury Nos. 2 and 3 from the assault made by Nirmal Singh appellant by means of a spear, Hardev Singh fell on the ground and suffered injury No. 1. The statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW6) proves the participation of appellants Nirmal Singh and Nishan Singh in this occurrence beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The evidence of Sukhdev Singh is amply corroborated by the medical evidence. In our considered view, participation of Joginder Singh, Rajwant Singh @ Raj Pal @ Raji and Nishan Singh appears to be doubtful and their false implication in this case cannot be ruled out. They deserve to be acquitted.
Accused appellant Nirmal Singh was found in possession of one barchhi (spear) without any valid permit or licence. This barchhi was produced by appellant Nirmal Singh in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by him before ASI Satwant Singh and Constable Balkar Singh on 12.8.1991. Nirmal Singh appellant was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act and after trial, the learned trial Judge held the recovery of barchhi on the pointing of Nirmal Singh as believable and he was convicted of the charge and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment thereof to suffer further RI for one month.
The statements of SI Satwant Singh (PW1) and Constable Balkar Singh (PW 2) amply corroborate the case of the prosecution and we do not find any infirmity in their evidence. The learned trial Judge has rightly convicted him and the sentence awarded is adequate, just and proper, requiring no interference. His Criminal Appeal No. 220DB/1994 is, thus, without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Harpal Singh @ Bhalla in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by him, produced a barchhi before ASI Satwant Singh on 17.8.1991, which he was possessing without any valid permit or licence. He was chargesheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence, convicted him of the charge levelled against him and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month.
The statements of ASI Satwant Singh (PW 1) and Constable Balkar Singh (PW2) regarding the appellant, Harpal Singh, producing the barchhi, which he had concealed, are consistent and we do not fine any discrepancy in their evidence sufficient enough to discard their sworn testimony. The learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance on their evidence and has rightly convicted appellant Harpal Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge against appellant Harpal Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act is adequate, just and proper and no interference is called for. His appeal being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Nirmal Singh and Harpal Singh alias Bhalla appellants shared a common intention of committing murder of Hardev Singh and in furtherance of their common intention, appellant Nirmal Singh committed murder of Hardev Singh. In furtherance of the common intention of both these appellants, Harpal Singh inflicted injuries to Sukhdev Singh. Thus, Nirmal Singh appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for committing murder of Hardev Singh and he is liable to be convicted under Section 324/34 IPC for the injuries caused to Sukhdev Singh. Appellant Harpal Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily inflicting injuries to Sukhdev Singh by means of a spear, while he is liable to be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Hardev Singh. We, therefore, convict Nirmal Singh and Hardev Singh accordingly and maintain their sentence, as awarded by the learned trial Judge.
Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal (No. 219DB of 1994) filed qua appellants Joginder Singh, Rajwant Singh @ Raj Pal @ Raji and Nishan Singh is allowed and their conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge and set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. However, the appeal (No. 219/DB1994) qua appellants Nirmal Singh and Harpal Singh is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of Nirmal Singh under Section 302 IPC as awarded by the learned trial Judge is maintained. He is further convicted under Section 324, read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of one year. Appellant Harpal Singh is convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months, as awarded, is maintained thereunder. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC, as awarded by the learned trial Judge to appellant Harpal Singh is maintained. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Appellants Nirmal Singh and Harpal Singh are, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC. These appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC and to that extent, the judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified.
The Criminal Appeal No. 220DB/1994, filed by Nirmal Singh and the Criminal Appeal No. 221DB/1994, filed by Harpal Singh against their conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act fail and are dismissed.