Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh Etc vs State Of Pb on 10 March, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
(I) CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M)
Ajit Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
(II) CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M)
Baljit Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
(III) CRR-1363-2005 (O&M)
Charanjit Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Ajit Singh and others ... Respondents
Date of Decision:-10.3.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, Amicus Curiae,
for the appellant(s) in
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 & CRA-D-251-DB-2005.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. D.S.Virk, Advocate, Amicus Curiae,
for the petitioner in CRR-1363-2005.
*****
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (2)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned set of two appeals filed on
behalf of appellants namely Ajit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish
Singh & Balbir Singh challenging their conviction in respect of offences
punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur
vide judgment dated 16.3.2005, and also a criminal revision petition filed
filed by complainant – Charanjit Singh challenging acquittal of accused
Swaran Kaur @ Swarni, Jaswinder Kaur, Resham Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur
@ Beena while also seeking enhancement of sentences imposed upon
accused/appellants namely Ajit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish
Singh & Balbir Singh.
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.86, dated 18.5.2002 registered at Police
Station Mahilpur, under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 148 and 149 of Indian
Penal Code, at the instance of Charanjit Singh son of Sohan Singh. The
translated gist of his statement (Ex.PA) reads as under:
“I am an agriculturist by profession. Lakhvir Singh is my cousin, who
had constructed a residential house in the village adjoining the house of
Ajit Singh. Ajit Singh had placed ‘girders’ on the wall of Lakhvir Singh’s
house in Lakhvir Singh’s absence without seeking his permission. When
Lakhvir Singh questioned Ajit Singh about the same, Ajit Singh replied
that it would not matter and that he (Ajit Singh) will pay for his share in
the constructed wall. Later when Lakhvir Singh demanded the amount
qua the share of Ajit Singh in respect of the constructed wall, then Ajit
Singh retorted that he (Lakhvir Singh) had raised the construction by
encroaching upon his (Ajit Singh’s) plot and, as such, there was no
question of any payment of amount. The said remarks led to an
altercation between them and Lakhvir Singh told Ajit Singh that he willPankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (3)remove the ‘girders’ from the wall. The said incident was disclosed to me
as well as to complainant’s uncle Chain Singh and Gurmit Singh son of
Chain Singh by Lakhvir Singh. We, however, advised that we should not
enter into any kind of quarrel and will discuss the matter with Ajit Singh.
Today (18.5.2002) at about 10:30 A.M., I alongwith Lakhvir Singh,
Chain Singh and Gurmit Singh went to the roof of Lakhvir Singh’s house
to check the position of ‘girders’. However, we saw that Ajit Singh
armed with a ‘kirpan’, Jagtar Singh armed with a ‘datar’, Parveen Singh
@ Tota unarmed, Veena Rani, Resham Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Swarni,
who were all carrying brick bats and sticks, were sitting with a pre-
meditated plan and upon seeing them Ajit Singh raised a ‘lalkara’
exhorting his companions to catch us and to teach us a lesson for
removing ‘girders’ from the wall. Immediately thereafter Ajit Singh gave
a blow with ‘kirpan’ to Lakhvir Singh hitting him on his head. Baldish
Singh inflicted a blow with ‘gandasi’ on the head of Lakhvir Singh.
Baljit Singh gave a blow with ‘kirpan’ on the head of Lakhvir Singh and
resultantly Lakhvir Singh fell down. Veena Rani, Resham Kaur and
Jaswinder Kaur started throwing brick bats while Lakhvir Singh had
fallen down, hitting him on his head and on other parts of his body. I
stepped forward pleading with them not to give beatings. Baldish Singh
inflicted a blow with ‘gandasi’ aiming the same at my head and when I
raised my right arm to ward off the blow, the ‘gandasi’ hit my arm.
Thereafter Baljit Singh gave a blow with ‘kirpan’ hitting my right eye.
When Chain Singh and Gurmit Singh stepped forward to save us, then
Balbir Singh gave a ‘gandasi’ blow to Gurmit Singh hitting him on his
head and arms. Ajit Singh and Baljit Singh gave blows with ‘kirpans’ on
the head of Gurmit Singh and who consequently fell down. While he was
lying fallen Swarni gave a blow with ‘dang’ to Gurmit Singh. Baldish
Singh gave a blow with ‘gandasi’ on the head of Chain Singh. Ajit Singh
gave a ‘kirpan’ blow on the head of Chain Singh. Jagtar Singh inflicted
an injury with ‘datar’ on the head of Chain Singh. In the meantime,
Chain Singh’s sons namely Gurdev Singh and Santokh Singh reached at
the spot and who witnessed the occurrence and raised alarm ‘maar ditta’
thereafter the accused ran away from the spot with their respective
weapons. All four of us were taken to Civil Hospital, Mahilpur by
Gurdev Singh and Santokh Singh, where we were administered first-aid.
Lakhvir Singh, Chain Singh and Gurmit Singh were referred to Civil
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (4)Hospital, Hoshiarpur. However, Lakhvir Singh could not survive and
succumbed to his injuries. Ajit Singh, his son Jagtar Singh and Parveen
Singh, his daughters Veena Rani, Resham Kaur & Jaswinder Kaur, his
wife Swarni, Baldish Singh, Balbir Singh and Baljit Singh had inflicted
injuries when Charanjit Singh had demanded payment of amount in
respect of their share in the constructed wall as Ajit Singh had placed
‘girders’ on the same. Action be taken.”
3. The aforesaid statement (Ex.PA) was recorded at Civil Hospital Mahilpur and
was sent to police station for registering formal FIR. Thereafter S.I. Paramjit
Singh (PW-12) proceeded to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where dead body of
Lakhvir Singh had been kept and prepared inquest report. Post mortem
examination of dead body was got conducted. Chain Singh and Gurmit Singh
had also been referred from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur to DMC, Ludhiana on
18.5.2002 itself. The police also visited the place of occurrence and prepared
a rough site plan Ex.PEE. Later a scaled site plan Ex.PC was prepared. Blood
stained soil was lifted from the spot and was prepared in two sealed parcels.
Accused Ajit Singh, his son Jagtar Singh and two of his daughters namely
Rajwinder Kaur and Resham Kaur were arrested on 19.5.2002. During the
course of interrogation of Ajit Singh, he suffered a disclosure statement
Ex.PFF as regards concealment of ‘kirpan’ under an iron box in his house and
pursuant to the said disclosure statement, got the same recovered which was
taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PJJ. During the
course of interrogation of Jagtar Singh, he suffered a disclosure statement
Ex.PGG as regards concealment of blood stained ‘datar’ in his room and got
the same recovered which was taken into possession by the police vide
recovery memo Ex.PLL. Accused Baljit Singh and Baldish Singh were
arrested on 27.5.2002. During the course of interrogation of Baljit Singh, he
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (5)
suffered a disclosure statement Ex.POO regarding concealment of ‘kirpan’
and subsequently got the same recovered which was taken into possession by
the police vide recovery memo Ex.PQQ. Baldish Singh suffered a disclosure
statement Ex.PRR regarding concealment of a ‘gandasi’ which was got
recovered by him and taken into possession by the police vide recovery
memo Ex.PTT. Swarni and Jaswinder Kaur were arrested by the police on
5.7.2002. The weapon used in the occurrence i.e. ‘kirpan’ got recovered at the
instance of accused Ajit Singh as well as the blood stained soil lifted from the
spot were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab,
Chandigarh and were found to be stained with human blood vide report
Ex.PVV.
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented before Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur on 10.8.2002 against 8 accused, who
committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.8.2002.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, finding sufficient grounds to
presume that the accused had killed Lakhvir Singh and had injured others
accordingly framed charges against the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code
9.9.2002. Subsequently, upon an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed
by the prosecution Balbir Singh was ordered to be summoned as an additional
accused vide order dated 28.3.2003 and charges were framed afresh against
all the 9 accused in respect of the aforesaid offences on 5.5.2003 to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It may here be mentioned that co-
accused Parveen, who was a juvenile, was tried separately by Juvenile Justice
Board.
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (6)
5. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 12 PWs.
The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:-
PW-1 Charanjit Singh (complainant) stated in tune with his statement
Ex.PA got recorded by him before the police on the basis of which
FIR had been lodged. He narrated in detail the manner in which the
accused had inflicted injuries to the deceased and also to him and to
other injured.
PW-2 Gurmit Singh (injured) stated in tune with the prosecution version
with regard to the injuries inflicted by the accused.
PW-3 Dr. Jagmohan Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur
stated that on 21.5.2002 while he was on duty in X-ray Department
in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, Charanjit Singh had been medically
examined and X-ray examination was done by Radiographer
Madanjit Singh in his presence and he had furnished opinion on the
basis of the x-ray films opining therein that no bone injury was
detected in the x-ray films.
PW-4 Arjun Khanna, Draftsman proved the scaled site plan Ex.PC
prepared by him.
PW-5 Dr. Karnail Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur,
who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of
Lakhvir Singh on 19.5.2002, stated in detail with respect to the
injuries found on the dead body and proved the post-mortem report
as Ex.PD. He opined the cause of death to be on account of shock
and hemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature.
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (7)
PW-6 Dr. Simarjit, Resident, DMC and Hospital, Ludhiana stated that she
had examined Gurmit Singh and had conducted x-ray examination
of his left forearm, wrist and elbow and that there was evidence of
fracture of left ulna (forearm).
PW-7 Dr. Raj Kumar, C.T. Scan Centre, Hoshiarpur stated that he is not in
possession of original record of C.T. scan because they do not
maintain any such record and that the C.T. scan films are handed
over to the patients or to their attendants.
PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh, Medical Officer, Chest and T.B. Hospital,
Patiala stated that on 18.5.2002 while he was posted at Community
Health Centre, Mahilpur, he had medico-legally examined Gurmit
Singh and had found 2 injuries on his person i.e. one incised wound
on his left forearm and another incised wound on the left parito
occipital region. He proved the MLR in respect of Gurmit Singh as
Ex.PJ. He further stated that on the same day he had medico legally
examined Chain Singh, who was found to have sustained one
incised wound on his head. He proved the MLR in respect of Chain
Singh as Ex.PK. He further stated that on the said day he had also
examined Charanjit Singh and had found two injuries on his body
i.e. an incised wound on his skull and another incised wound on his
right forearm. He proved the MLR in respect of Charanjit Singh as
Ex.PL. He further stated that later upon examining the C.T. scan
report in respect of Chain Singh, he declared injury No.1 as
dangerous to life vide his opinion Ex.PM. He further stated that he
had declared injury No.1 in respect of Gurmit Singh also to be
grievous in nature and injury No.2 of Gurmit Singh being
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (8)dangerous to life. He further stated that injuries No.1 & 2 of
Charanjit Singh were declared simple injuries.
PW-9 Dr. R.K. Kaushal, Department of Neuro Surgery, DMC Ludhiana
stated that Gurmit Singh had been admitted in their hospital on
18.5.2002, having been referred by Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and
that Gurmit Singh was suffering from a compound depressed
fracture of his left parital bone and compound fracture of left ulna
and was operated upon on the same day itself i.e. on 18.5.2002 and
was discharged on 30.5.2002. He proved the bed head ticket as
Ex.PQ and discharge slip card as Ex.PR in respect of Gurmit Singh.
He further stated that on the same day i.e. on 18.5.2002 he had also
examined Chain Singh and who also was having a depressed
fracture on his left parital bone with air in the brain and was found
to be having a brain injury and was operated upon on 19.5.2002 and
was discharged on 1.6.2002. He proved the bed head ticket as
Ex.PS and discharge slip card as Ex.PT in respect of Chain Singh.
PW-10 Head Constable Gurmail Singh, who was posted as MHC at Police
Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, tendered his affidavit Ex.PX in
evidence, wherein he deposed that on 4.7.2002 the case property
was sent through Constable Makhan Singh for depositing the same
in the office of FSL, Chandigarh, but on account of some
objections having been raised by office of FSL, Chandigarh, the
same was deposited back in the ‘Malkhana’ on 4.7.2002 itself and
that it was subsequently on 11.7.2002, after removal of objections,
the case property was again sent through Constable Makhan Singh
for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Chandigarh and the
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) (9)
same was accordingly deposited in the office of FSL, Chandigarh
on the said date. He further deposed that as long as the case
property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered
with.
PW-11 Constable Makhan Singh, who is another formal witness, tendered
his affidavit Ex.PY in evidence, wherein he deposed that on
4.7.2002 MHC Gurmail Singh had handed over the case property to
him with a direction to deposit the same in the office of FSL,
Chandigarh but on account of some objections having been raised
by office of FSL, Chandigarh, the same was deposited back in the
‘Malkhana’ on 4.7.2002 itself and that it was subsequently on
11.7.2002 that the case property was again handed over to him,
which he accordingly deposited in the office of FSL, Chandigarh
on 11.7.2002. He further deposed that as long as the case property
remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with.
PW-12 SI Paramjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar,
who is the Investigating Officer in the present case stated in detail
with regard to the investigation conducted in the matter right from
lodging of the FIR upto the filing of challan. He stated with regard
to the disclosure statements made by the accused and the recovery
of the weapons made pursuant thereto. He proved various
documents and memos prepared during the course of investigation.
He stated that upon conclusion of investigation challan was
presented in the Court of learned Area Magistrate.
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 10 )
6. The prosecution tendered into evidence the report of FSL as Ex.PBB and
closed its evidence. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of
all the accused were recorded in terms of provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein the entire prosecution evidence was put to them, but they denied the
case of prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. The accused
additionally took a plea that as a matter of fact Lakhvir Singh, Gurmit Singh,
Charanjit Singh and Chain Singh, who were all armed with ‘sabals’ (iron
rods) etc. had come to the roof of the house of Ajit Singh and had tried to
dismantle the roof and when they tried to stop them, they inflicted injuries to
them (accused) and that some injuries were also sustained by persons on the
complainant’s side and that Lakhvir Singh had sustained injuries at the hands
of members of his own party and had fallen down from roof. Accused Baldish
Singh and Baljit Singh took a plea that they had been falsely implicated due
to party faction in the village.
7. In their defence, the accused examined DW-1 Darshan Singh, SP Vigilance
Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Punjab, Chandigarh, who stated that he was posted
as SP(D), Hoshiarpur in May, 2002 and had conducted an inquiry in the
matter with regard to involvement of Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh and Balbir
and that as per the verification of the facts he had found that the occurrence
had taken place on the roof of house of Ajit Singh. He further stated that later
on he came to know that subsequently a supplementary challan in terms of
provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed, wherein the name of Balbir
Singh was mentioned in column No.2. The accused examined DW-2 Dr.
Dilbag Rai, SMO, Incharge, CHC, Mahilpur, PHU Paldi, District Hoshiarpur,
who stated that on 19.5.2002 Ajit Singh & Jagtar Singh had come to the
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 11 )
“emergency” section of hospital where they were medically examined by Dr.
Kavita Bhatia. He proved the relevant extracts from the register pertaining to
the entries in question as Ex.DC. The accused also examined DW-3 Dr.
Kavita Bhatia, Medical Officer, who stated that she had medically examined
Ajit Singh and had recorded the following observations:
“There is abrasion on left temporal bone 7.5 cm above left
ear, 2 cm X 1 cm” No other fresh injury was detected.”
8. DW-3 further stated that even Jagtar Singh son of Ajit Singh had been
examined by her, who was found to be having the following injury:
“1. Lacerated wound on the dorsal aspect of left arm at
junction of upper half and lower half. 1 cm x ½ cm. No
fresh injury was detected.”
9. The Trial Court framed the following points for determination:
“1. Whether eye-witness account of the version is
trustworthy?
2. Whether the medical evidence led by the prosecution
supports the injured eye-witnesses version?
3. Whether there is inordinate delay in reporting the
matter to the police and despatch of the special report
to the Area Magistrate? If so its effect?
4. Whether the recovery of the weapons of offence from
possession of some of the accused brings an important
circumstance in favour of the prosecution?”
10. The learned trial Court, upon marshaling the evidence on record, found that
the prosecution had failed to establish charges against Swaran Kaur @
Swarni, Resham Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur @ Beena,
whereas the charges framed against the five accused namely Ajit Singh,
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 12 )
Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh and Balbir Singh were found to be
duly established. Consequently, the accused were convicted and sentenced as
under:
Name of the Offence Imprisonment Fine In default
convict
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
307 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
Ajit Singh months
324 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
148 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
302 r/w 149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
307 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
months
Jagtar Singh
307 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
months
324 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
148 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
307 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
Baljit Singh months
324 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years -- --
148 IPC R.I. for 3 years -- --
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
307 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
Baldish Singh months
324 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years -- --
148 IPC R.I. for 3 years -- --
302 r/w 149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- R.I. for 1 year
307 IPC R.I. for 10 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 6
Balbir Singh months
324 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
148 IPC R.I. for 3 years — —
11. Learned counsel for the appellant(s), while assailing the conviction of the
accused/appellant(s), submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the
present case and that falsity of the case would be evident from the fact that
the witnesses in question have been taking inconsistent stands. Learned
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 13 )
counsel further submitted that even the medical evidence does not
substantiate the ocular version as narrated in the FIR and that while Chain
Singh is stated to have been inflicted 3 injuries on his head by three different
accused i.e. by Ajit Singh and also by Jagtar Singh and Baldish Singh, but as
a matter of fact only one injury was found on his head.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that even the involvement and presence of
Balbir Singh at the spot is highly doubtful and while in the FIR the
complainant alleged that Balbir Singh inflicted 2 injuries to Gurmit Singh i.e.
on his head and another on his arm, the complainant, however, changed his
stand when he stepped into the witness box and attributed 1 injury only to
Balbir Singh i.e. injury on the head of Gurmit Singh. Learned counsel further
submitted that while Balbir Singh is alleged to be carrying a ‘gandasi’, the
doctor in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana i.e. PW-9 Dr. R.K. Kaushal stated that
injury on the head of Gurmit Singh could be possible due to fall on the edges
of parapet walls.
13. Learned counsel submitted that the genesis of occurrence had been
suppressed and that admittedly the occurrence had taken place on the roof of
house of Ajit Singh and infact the complainant party had attacked Ajit Singh
and others, wherein Ajit Singh and his son Jagtar Singh were injured and that
it was in self-defence that some injuries came to be sustained by the
complainant’s side and that during the course of scuffle Lakhvir Singh fell
down from the roof leading to his death.
14. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case of eye
version account, wherein the complainant i.e. PW-1 Charanjit Singh and also
the injured i.e. PW-2 Gurmit Singh are both stamped witnesses having
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 14 )
sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and they have stated
consistently on all the material aspects of the case and that their testimonies
not only inspire confidence but also stand corroborated from the medical
evidence. Learned State counsel thus submitted that findings of guilt as
recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and warrant no
interference.
15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, while pressing the revision
petition, submitted that the acquittal of accused namely Swaran Kaur @
Swarni, Resham Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur @ Beena is
without any justifiable basis and that the Trial Court fell in error in acquitting
them although it is on the basis of testimonies of the same very witnesses that
five of the co-accused namely Ajit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish
Singh and Balbir Singh have been convicted. Learned counsel further
submitted that the sentence as imposed upon the aforesaid five accused is not
commensurate with the offences committed by them and the same needs to be
enhanced.
16. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with
the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case.
17. Since the primary offence alleged in the instant case is the offence of murder
of Lakhvir Singh, it is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led
by the prosecution as regards the injuries/death of Lakhvir Singh. PW-5 Dr.
Karnail Singh, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead
body of Lakhvir Singh stated in detail with regard to the injuries found on the
dead body and described the same as under:
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 15 )“1. Stitched wound over left side of forehead. 7 cm. In length starting
from eyebrow going towards left temporal area. On opening the
stitches the wound was incised in nature, wound was bone deep. On
further disection fracture of left frontal and temporal bone was seen.
On opening the skull, menninges and brain were congested.
2. Stitched wound 2 cm size horizental left side of forehead 2 cm. above
injury No.1 just below the hairline. On opening wound was incised in
nature and was s/c tissue deep.
3. Incised wound 7 cm X 1 cm. Vertical in left porittal area of scalp 12
cm from top of pinna of left ear. 2 cm away from midline, bone deep.
4. Lacerated wound 7 cm X 1.5 cm. horizontal right parital area of
scalp. Just away from midline 10 cm. above the top of right ear. The
wound was bone deep.
5. Lacerated wound 5cm X 1cm. Obliquely horizontal in right parital
area just front of injury No.4. 1 cm. away from midline. 12 cm. from
the top of right ear and wound was bone deep.
6. Incised wound elliptical in shape 2 cm X 1.5 cm. on the back of right
shoulder. 5 cm. below the top of shoulder. S/C tissue deep. Clotted
blood was present. Blood sample from the heart was taken and was
handed over to the Shamsher Singh SI on his request, and note to this
effect was given in the post mortem report.”
18. PW-5 Dr. Karnail Singh while proving the post-mortem report as Ex.PD
further stated that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to
the injuries found on the dead-body, which were sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. The witnesses were briefly cross-examined on
behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could elicited during the course
of cross-examination so as to doubt either his veracity or his opinion.
19. As noticed above, the deceased Lakhvir Singh was found to have sustained as
many as 6 injuries out of which 5 injuries were on his head and one was on
his back. Further out of the 6 injuries 4 injuries were incised wounds. Having
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 16 )
regard to the number and nature of injuries and the opinion of the doctor
concerned, which could not be shattered on any count, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that Lakhvir Singh died on account of the injuries
inflicted to him.
20. It is not in dispute that it is a case of an eye version account. The complainant
i.e. PW-1 Charanjit Singh and PW-2 Gurmit Singh are both eye-witnesses and
were injured in the occurrence. The factum of existence of injuries on their
person has been duly proved by PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh, Medical Officer,
Chest and T.B. Hospital, Patiala. PW-8 while in the witness box categorically
stated that on 18.5.2002 he had medico-legally examined Gurmit Singh and
has found the following injuries:
“1. A horizontal incised wound about 7.5 cm X 2.5 cm on the medial
side of the left forearm at the level of the wrist, wound is bleeded
profusely underlying bone and tendons are seen out. Wound is
extended to dorsal and vertical aspect of forearm. Advised x-ray
and Ortho opinion.
2. An incised wound about 11 cm X 2.5 cm x bone deep on the left
parito occipital region about 10 cm above and posterior to tipo
pinna left. Wound is bleeded profusely. Hairs and clothes are
matted with blood. This wound is about 4 cm lateral to saggital
sinus. Advised x-ray and ortho opinion.”
21. PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh further stated that on the same day he had examined
Charanjit Singh and found the following injuries on his person:
“1. An oblique incised wound about 7 cm X .75 cm on right side of
zygomatic process of skull wound is bleeded slightly.
2. An incised wound 7 cm X 3 cm X muscle deep dorsal medial
aspect of right forearm muscle and seen clearly. Wound is bleeded
profusely movement of the wrist painful. Advised x-ray right
forearm.”
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 17 )
22. PW-8 further stated that he had also examined Chain Singh on the same day
i.e. on 18.5.2002 and found the following injuries on his person:
“1. An incised wound about 7.5 cm X 2.5 cm X bone deep on posterior
part of skull extending upto occipital bone. Wound is bleeded
profusely underlying muscles are also cut. Advied x-ray skull.”
23. PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh opined that the weapon used for causing injuries
was sharp edged weapon. He further stated that upon receipt of the C.T. scan
report in respect of Chain Singh, he declared injury No.1 as dangerous to life
vide his opinion Ex.PM. He further stated that he had declared injury No.1 in
respect of Gurmit Singh also to be grievous in nature and injury No.2 of
Gurmit Singh being dangerous to life. He further stated that injuries No.1 & 2
of Charanjit Singh were declared simple injuries. During the course of cross-
examination the aforesaid doctor stated that the injuries could be a result of a
single weapon.
24. While it is correct that the accused are stated to be carrying 3 types of
weapons i.e. sword, gandasi and datar, but all three of these are in the nature
of sharp edged weapons and, under these circumstances, the resultant injury
inflicted with such weapons would be more or less identical in nature and, as
such, the opinion of the doctor during cross-examination that the injuries
found on person of injured could be a result of a single weapon only would
not cause any dent in the case of prosecution or give any reason to doubt the
opinion of the doctor concerned. Under these circumstances, this Court has
no hesitation in affirming that PW-1 and PW-2 had also sustained injuries.
The attribution of injuries as given by the said witnesses is more or less
consistent and barring minor and insignificant inconsistencies they have
stated identically on all material aspects.
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 18 )
25. However, as far as the case of accused Jagtar Singh is concerned, there is
some doubt as regards his involvement inasmuch the injury attributed to
Jagtar Singh i.e. injury on the head of Chain Singh is attributed to 2 other
accused as well. In the FIR, complainant – Charanjit Singh stated that while
Ajit Singh had inflicted injury on the head of Chain Singh with the help of
‘kirpan’, Baldish Singh had inflicted injuries with ‘gandasi’ on the head of
Chain Singh and that even Jagtar Singh inflicted injury on the head of Chain
Singh with a ‘datar’. However, only one injury was found on the head of
Chain Singh as per his MLR. Although when complainant Charanjit Singh
stepped into the witness-box he attributed the injury on the head of Chain
Singh to Jagtar Singh only, but PW-2 Gurmit Singh did not attribute any
injury to Jagtar Singh. Further, the injured Chain Singh himself did not step
into the witness-box to disclose as to how he had sustained the injury on his
head. Under these circumstances, it is certainly unsafe to hold that Jagtar
Singh had caused injury to Chain Singh particularly in view of the
inconsistent stand of the PWs and also on account of the Chain Singh himself
did not step into the witness box. Jagtar Singh is not stated to have caused
any other injury. Consequently, a doubt having been created as regards the
presence of Jagtar Singh and as regards his attribution, his conviction cannot
sustain and deserves to be set aside.
26. Learned counsel representing appellant – Balbir Singh while assailing his
conviction submitted that although in the FIR complainant – Charanjit Singh
stated that Balbir Singh inflicted 2 injuries to Gurmit Singh i.e. on his head
and arm, whereas when Charanjit Singh stepped into the witness box, he
attributed one injury only to Balbir Singh i.e. on the head of Gurmit Singh,
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 19 )
therefore, a doubt stands created as regards the involvement of Balbir Singh.
While it is correct that there is slight inconsistency in the version recorded by
Charanjit Singh to the police and in his statement recorded in the Court, but
this Court finds that as far as the injury on the head of Gurmit Singh is
concerned, the same is duly established from the medical evidence in the
shape of testimony of PW-8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh. Further, Gurmit Singh,
unlike injured Chain Singh himself stepped into the witness box and
categorically stated that he had been inflicted injury on the head by Balbir
Singh and did not attribute any other injury. The aforesaid statement of Balbir
Singh is consistent with the statement of PW-1 Charanjit Singh. Under these
circumstance, minor inconsistency as pointed out by learned counsel would
be insignificant and there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution as
regards the involvement of accused Balbir Singh.
27. The case of the prosecution would also find corroboration from the factum of
recovery of the weapons of offence at the instance of accused inasmuch as
while Ajit Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement got recovered a blood
stained ‘kirpan’, which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery
memo Ex.PJJ, Baljit Singh got recovered a ‘kirpan’ which had been cleaned
and which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo
Ex.PQQ and Baldish Singh got recovered a ‘gandasi’ which had been cleaned
and which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo
Ex.PTT. The blood stained ‘kirpan’ recovered at the instance of Ajit Singh
was sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the report of FSL
Ex.PBB, the said ‘kirpan’ was found to be stained with human blood. As per
the report of the FSL even the blood stained soil collected from the spot was
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 20 )
found to be stained with human blood. The said circumstances would also led
assurance to the case of prosecution.
28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the accused
submitted that the injuries in question had infact been caused in self defence
as the occurrence had taken place on the roof of Ajit Singh’s house, but
having regard to the fact that none from the side of the complainant was
armed with any weapon, whereas the accused were duly armed, the aforesaid
contention does not seems plausible at all particularly in view of the fact that
it is the conduct of the accused as regards placement of ‘girders’ on the wall
constructed by the deceased, which had given rise to the dispute in question.
29. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the findings of guilt of
accused namely Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh & Balbir Singh as
recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and the same are
duly borne out from the evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of
testimonies of the stamped witnesses and which are corroborated by the
medical evidence and also by the factum of recovery of weapons of offence at
the instance of accused. Consequently, conviction of the appellants namely
Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh & Balbir Singh is upheld and appeals
filed on their behalf being sans merit and are hereby dismissed. However, as
already discussed above, the conviction of appellant – Jagtar Singh cannot
sustain for the reasons recorded above and, as such, the appeal qua Jagtar
Singh is hereby accepted and his conviction is set aside. His bail bonds/surety
bonds shall stand discharged. The criminal revision also stands dismissed.
30. Intimation be sent to quarters concerned for effecting arrest of appellants Ajit
Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh & Balbir Singh so as to undergo remaining
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
CRA-D-250-DB-2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-251-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRR-1363-2005 (O&M) ( 21 )
part of their sentence. Case property be dealt with under rules upon expiry of
limitation for filing appeal.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
10.3.2025 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
Pankaj JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
Pankaj Kakkar
2025.03.11 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh