TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (1) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hazara Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act while Jagrup Singh for offences under Section 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The remaining accused were acquitted of all the charges. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 10-6-1984 when Sohan Lal, PW 5 father of the deceased Jajpal Singh was watching television along with his other family members, on hearing the firing of 8 or 9 shots, he came out into the courtyard and saw two persons standing near his son, Jajpal Singh deceased. One of them was armed with a gandasa while the other had a pistol in his hand. The person who was armed with a gandasa in the presence of PW 5, inflicted some injuries on Jajpal Singh while the other person took away the .12 bore DBBL gun belonging to Sohan Lal, PW 5 which was lying near the cot in the courtyard where Jajpal Singh was sitting. Sohan Lal, PW 5 also noticed some 8 or 10 persons standing at a distance in the darkness. On hearing noise,the assailants as well as the other 8/10 persons ran away. Finding Jajpal Singh in a seriously injured condition, Sohan Lal PW 5 removed him to the Mission Hospital, Ferozepur. Dr A.S. Mann, Emergency Medical Officer sent i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uries 3 and 4 communicating with each other. The abdominal cavity was full of clotted blood. The ribs under injury 4 were fractured. Injury 3 was the wound of entrance and injury 4 the wound of exit. There was clotted blood along the track. (v) Terminal 1/4 parts of the index, middle and ring finger of the right hand were found amputated with the margins of the wound incised. Levelwas inone line. Clotted blood was present. (vi) Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused margins 0.75cm x 0.5 cm on the outer surface of the right ankle. On dissection the underlying bone was found fractured. A bullet was taken out from the wound which was seized. Clotted blood was present. (vii)Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused margins, dimensions being 0.75 cmx 0.5 cm on the outer and the middle of theleft upper arm with clotted blood present. On dissection the underlying bone was found fractured. A bullet was extracted from the wound which was seized. (viii)Grazed lacerated wound in the form of furrow 10 cms x 1 1/2 cms superficial on the outer an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this circumstance alone I cannot spell out their criminality. Accordingly I acquit Satnam Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sucha Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jagir Singh accused." 9. The conviction of Jagrup Singh and Hazara Singh for the various offences as noticed above, was recorded, in paragraph 30 thus: "Sohan Lai (PW 5) at the trial on oath stated that Jasbir Singh accused had given gandasa blows and Mukhtiar Singh had taken away the gun. The gun was subsequently recovered from Jagrup Singh accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. P-23. The gun is Ex. MO-3 which is the licensed gun of Sohan Lai (PW 5). Inasmuch as the gun was taken away from the spot by Mukhtiar Singh. Jagrup Singh would be liable criminally under Section 411 of the Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The only evidence against Hazara Singh accused is that he was arrested by Shri Harcharan Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector and his search brought out a pistol of .315 bore Ex. MO-4 and two cartridges Exs. MO-5 and MO-6 for which he had no licence. Hazara Singh accused has to be convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act." The learned Judge of the Special Court then proceeded to consider the case of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 of 1985 or convict the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1985. On the plainest requirement of justice and fair trial the least that was expected of the trial court was to notice, consider and discuss, howsoever briefly, the evidence of various witnesses as well as the arguments addressed at the bar. The trial court has not done so. The trial court apparently failed in the discharge of its essential 1 State of Punjab v. Bhura Singh, (1985) 1 SCC 37 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 33 766 duties. There is no mention in the judgment as to what various witnesses deposed at the trial, except for the evidence of the medical witness. The judgment does not disclose as to what was argued before it on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The judgment is so infirm that we are unable to appreciate as to how the findings were arrived at. The judgment of the trial court is truly speaking not a judgment in the eyes of law. The trial court appears to have been blissfully ignorant of the requirements of Section 354(1)(b) CrPC. Since, the first appeal lay to this Court, the trial court should have reproduced and discussed at least the essential parts of the evidence of the witnesses besides recording....