State of Punjab vs Amarjit Singh and anr.

S.K. Jain, J.

(Oral) According to the prosecution version, on June 16, 1977, respondent No. 2 Harjit Singh along with Amarjit Singh respondent No. 1 (since deceased) and Dhian Singh (since absconding) were travelling by a scooter. A police party headed by H.C. Surjit Singh signaled them to stop but they did not oblige and instead tried to slip away by accelerating the speed of their Scooter. The Police Party chased them. After covering a distance of above one Kilometer, they threw the scooter and ran into a nearby sugarcane fields and fired shots. The police party, which was later on joined by a C.R.P.F. Party also fired shots. It is alleged that a passerby, namely, Kulbir Singh received a fire shot injury in his right thigh. Harjit Singh respondent and Amarjit Singh were apprehended by the police party whereas their third companion Dhian Singh made good his escape. A case under Sections 307/353/186/482, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act as also under Section 468/471, IPC was registered against them vide F.I.R. No. 50 on June 16, 1987 in Police Station, Morinda. The case was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, who vide his order of February 4, 1988, found that no offence punishable under Section 307, IPC was made out against the accused and, therefore, he remanded the case back to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar for framing the charge and proceeding further against them. This revision petition is directed against the said order.

Shri Harbhajan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed before me a photostate copy of F.I.R. No. 50, which is attested to be a true copy; true translation of the said FI.R. and a photostate copy of the medicolegal report of Kulbir Singh, which is also attested to be a true copy. I have perused these documents as also the impugned judgment and have considered the rival arguments.

Shri Shakti Singh, learned AAG has vehemently argued that Amarjit Singh, one of the three accused had a 38 bore revolver which he aimed towards the police party and pressed its trigger, the bullet exited from the muzzle of the said revolver had travelled on the thought of murder and hence they had the intention to kill the members of the police party or atleast had knowledge that if by that act they caused death they would be guilty of murder and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had legally erred in not framing the charge against them under Section 307, IPC and instead remanding the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, referring to the documents aforementioned has submitted that there is no material on the record to point out that the accused had the intention to kill or had any knowledge as mentioned herein before. He has submitted that the fact that the bullet had hit a passerby and not any member of the police party, goes a long way to show that they had no intention to kill any members of the police party and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that Amarjit had fired the shots to scare away the police party.

I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. H.C. Surjit Singh, who is the author of the first information report, accompanied by Constable Kuldeep Singh had chased the three accused but during the chase Amarjit Singh had not fired any shot towards them. Rather, after covering a distance of one kilometer the accused had abandoned their scooter and took shelter in the sugarcane field in order to avoid arrest. From behind the sugarcane crop they could clearly see the police party and Amarjit Singh could aim the muzzle of the revolver toward anyone of them. But there is nothing on the record to show that he had done so. From the material on record it cannot be said that Amarjit Singh had the intention to kill either of the above said police personnel or that he had knowledge that by firing shots, if any one of them was killed he would be guilty of murder.

Seen from any angle, I do not find any fault with the impugned judgment which is hereby confirmed. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, on 261992.