TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                         [2022] 2 S.C.R. 961                             961


                 TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA                                  A
                                  v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2018)
                           March 29, 2022                                B
       [N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
                   HIMA KOHLI, JJ]
       Arms Act, 1959: ss. 29 and 30 –Punishment for knowingly
purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms,
                                                                         C
etc., to person not entitled to possess the same – Punishment for
contravention of licence or rule – Prosecution case that the appellant
was the licence holder of the double barrel 12 bore rifle, used in
the murder of the deceased and was part in the conspiracy hatched
by the other co-accused – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 29 and
30, and u/s. 120-B IPC and sentenced accordingly –High Court             D
acquitted the appellant u/s. 120-B IPC, however, upheld the
conviction u/ss. 29 and 30 – On appeal, held: Appellant could have
been charged with s. 29(b) only after it was established by the
prosecution that he delivered the fire arm to the co-accused,
knowingly and deliberately–Thereis no evidence to establish that
                                                                         E
the fire arm was handed over to the co-accused by the appellant–
On the contrary, it appears that the co-accused illegally took the
licensed fire arm of the appellant without his permission and
knowledge and used the said weapon to murder the deceased–Thus,
the appellant’s conviction u/s. 29 not sustainable – Furthermore,
no evidence to establish any willful violation by the appellant of       F
any of the conditions of the Act or conditions of a licence or any
provision of theAct or any rule, thus, exonerated from the offence
of s. 30 as well –Order of the High Court convicting the appellant
u/ss. 29 and 30 set aside.
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.               G
293 of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-
1033-DB of 2011.
                                                                         H
                                 961
962            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A           A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
             Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Advs.
      for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
            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
C     No. CRA-D-1033-DB of 2011, whereby the High Court set-aside the
      conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 120-B IPC,
      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 under
D     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 Pritam Singh,
      PS Sadar Rupnagar (hereinafter ‘Investigating Officer/ IO’) reached
E     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 returned to
      Dubai where he worked as a Truck Driver, leaving her to live in her
      matrimonial home with her mother-in-law. The deceased returned to
F     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 asked the
      deceased to stop near a bush on the outskirt of Village Bahman Majra
      so she could relive herself, once she was back the deceased told her
G     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
H
        TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                             963
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

deceased stooped and bike and while Sukhjit Kaur was removing the             A
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 FIR
No. 119/2007 under Section 302 of IPC and Section 24 of Arms Act.             B
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. Thereafter, on                C
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 accused had
admitted their guilt before him. While in police custody accused Gurpreet     D
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     E
Barrel 12 bore Gun at his farm house in Village Sanana, about which
only he knew, the same was recovered and siezed by the police 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          F
of the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and in his
disclosure statement dt.15.08.2007 he told the police that he had kept
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.
                                                                              G
       4. Thereafter, post completion of investigation the police filed
charge sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar
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 accused as
under:                                                                        H
964               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A




B




C
               The accused, including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed
      trial.
             5. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined
      twenty-eight (28) witnesses and all the incriminating evidence was put
      to the accused persons, but they denied the allegations, both the accused
D     Gurpreet Singh and appellant denied having made any disclosure
      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:

E




F




G




H
        TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                            965
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

                                                                             A




       6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Criminal Appeal bearing No.       B
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       C
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.
                                                                             D
      7. However, with regard to the appellant’s conviction under Section
120-B IPC, the High Court found that the police had arrested 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. Accordingly, the       E
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.                                          F
      8. Being aggrieved by the High Court order, the appellant has
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 appellant       G
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 farmhouse of the
appellant and Accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, post which he used the
said rifle in committing the murder.                                         H
966             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            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 from the
      offence under Section 120-B IPC had observed that the appellant couldn’t
      have willingly handed over his licensed rifle to the Accused Gurpreet
B
      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 way of an
C     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.

D            13. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the State further
      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
E     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
F
      further states that though the Trial Court had asked the defence 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 came to the
      conclusion that the appellant had willingly handed over the gun to co-
G     accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu and was a co-conspirator.
             15. Having gone through the record of the case and having
      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
H
        TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                            967
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

with him to murder the deceased, so as to convict him under Section 29       A
of the Arms Act. Even though the High Court has acquitted the appellant
from the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, upheld 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 :-                       B
      “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 such class
      or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition from             C
      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 possession of
      another person without previously ascertaining that such
      other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law        D
      for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by
      this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the
      same; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
      may extend to 3 [three years, or with fine, or with both].
       17. In the light of the prosecution story, the appellant could have   E
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-    F
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-accused
Gurpreet Singh and was taken away from there by co-accused Gurpreet
Singh illegally and without permission of the appellant.                     G
      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 the impugned
judgment of the High Court to that extent is hereby set aside.
                                                                             H
968                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            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 taken
      away without his knowledge by the co-accused and used in the
      commission of an offence, there appears to be no justification to convict
B
      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 any
C             provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which
              no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall 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.”
D            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
E     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.

F




G




H