Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Kewal Singh And Anr on 11 March, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA
CRA-149-DBA-2004 (O&M)
Date
ate of Decision: 11.03.2025
State of Punjab ......Appellant
Versus
Kewal Singh & another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab,
for the appellant/State of Punjab.
Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The appellant/State of Punjab assails judgment dated 22.05.2003 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur
Hoshiarpur,, whereby both the
respondents/accused namely Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh have been
acquitted of the charges framed against them for offence under Section 302
IPC and also for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act framed against
accused Kewal Singh.
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.173 dated 17.08.2001, registered at Police
Station Tanda, under Sections 302/307, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act (Ex.PK/2),
(Ex.PK/2) at the instance of Taranjit Singh. The translated gist of his
statement (Ex.PK) reads as under:
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)(2)
“II am resident of Village Tala and am running a welding shop. Today i.e.
on 17.08.2001,
17.08.2001, I alongwith my brother
brother-in-law
law Amrik Singh and his wife
Lakhwinder Kaur were proceeding from Village Khudda to Village Tanda
on a scooter bearing registration No.PAO
No.PAO-2762.
2762. While I was driving the
scooter, Amrik Singh and his wife were sitting on pillion seat. At about
4.15 PM, when we were near Village Kurala
Kurala,, a jeep came from behind and
struck the rear side of my scooter as a result of which we all fell on
ground. The said jeep dragged us to a distance of about 15/20 karams.
While Kewal Singh was driving the jeep bearing registration No.
No.PCR–
8871,, his brotherr Gulzar Singh was sitting alongwith him. Kewal Singh
was carrying a gun, whereas Gulzar Singh was armed with a kirpan. Both
oth
of them got down from their jeep. Kewal Singh raised a lalkara exhorting
Gulzar Singh to chop off the neck of Amrik Singh so as to
o take revenge
for the murder of his son. Gulzar Singh inflicted a blow with kirpan on
the neck of Amrik Singh on account of which Amrik Singh fell down.
Thereafter, Kewal Singh fired from his 12 bore gun hitting the chest of
Amrik Singh. Lakhwinder Kaur
Kaur was lying on ground being seriously
injured. When I ran to save my life, both of them chased me. I raised
alarm ‘Mar Ditta Mar Ditta’,, which attracted some persons. Thereafter,
the accused left from the spot in their jeep alongwith their weapons
towards Dasuya. When I came near the spot, I saw Amrik Singh lying
dead and my sister-in-law
sister law Lakhwinder Kaur seriously injured. I arranged
for a vehicle and got Lakhwinder Kaur admitted in Civil Hospital, Tanda
and also sent a message to the
the house of my in
in-laws
laws in Village Khudda.
Santo Singh resident of Village Khudda
Santokh udda, who is my wife’s uncle, came
there and after leaving him at the spot, I proceeded to the police station,
but you met me on the way. Action be taken.
The motive for attacking
attacking and causing injuries is that my brother
brother-in-law
law
Amrik Singh had murdered son of Kewal Singh in the year 1997 in wh
which
ich
Amrik Singh was held guilty by the Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur and in
respect of which Amrik Singh had instituted an appeal in the Hig
High
h Court,
which was pending and Amrik Singh had been released on bail about 1½
months back. On account of the aforesaid reason, Kewal Singh and his
brother Gulzar Singh had hit their scooter with an intention to kill them
and had killed Amrik Singh with the
the help of kirpan and by firing from
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(3)
gun. My sister-in-law
sister law has been seriously injured and even I have
sustained injuries on account of fall.”
fall.
3. The aforesaid statement was recorded by SI Ajay Singh (PW
(PW-12)
12) when he
alongwith other police officials was present at Darapur Byepass, Tanda.
The statement (Ex.PK) was sent to police station for lodging of FIR and SI
Ajay Singh went to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings. Rough
site plan (Ex.PT) was prepared. Blood stained soil and one empty cartridge
of 12 bore was lifted from the spot and were converted into separate sealed
parcels. The dead body was sent for post-mortem
post mortem examination.
4. Accused Kewal Singh was arrested on 21.08.2001 and was interrogated
during the course of which he suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PAA) as
regards concealment of 12 bore gun in the verandah of his house and got
the same recovered, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PAA/1. Accused Kewal Singh produced his Arms License, Driving
License and 6 live cartridges, which were also taken into possession.
Accused Gulzar Singh was arrested on 25.08.2001 and was interrogated
during the course of which he disclosed that he had kept one kirpan
concealed
led underneath the wheat straw. Pursuant to his disclosure statement
(Ex.PCC), Gulzar Singh got the kirpan recovered from the disclosed place,
which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PCC/1.
5. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was ppresented against both the
accused namely Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh in the Court of Area
Magistrate on 12.11.2001, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions
vide commitment order dated 08.01.2002.. Learned Additional Sessions
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(4)
Judge, Hoshiarpur, framed charges for offence under Section 302 IPC
against both the accused and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against
accused Kewal Singh on 06.02.2002 to which accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
trial
6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 16 PWs..
The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:-
PW-1 Dr. R.K.Bagga,
R.K.Bagga SMO, Civil Hospital, Dasuya, who had conducted
post mortem examination on the dead body of Amrik Singh on
post-mortem
18.08.2001 proved the post-mortem
18.08.2001, mortem report as Ex.P
Ex.PA,, wherein he
described the injuries found on the dead body and opined that the
cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injuries,
wh were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature
which nature.
PW-2 Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared
the site plan Ex.PD at the asking of the police.
PW-3 Dr. Amarjit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tanda, who
had medico legally examined Taranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur
on 17.08.2001,, proved their respective MLRs as Ex.P
Ex.PE
E and Ex.PF
respectively wherein he described 6 injuries found on the person
respectively,
of Taranjit Singh and 5 injuries found on the person of
Lakhwinder Kaur.
Kaur During the course of cross
cross-examination,
examination, he
stated as regards having medically examined Gulzar Singh on
17.08.2001 as well. He described 4 injuries found on the person of
Gulzar Singh and has also proved his MLR as Ex.DA.
PW-4 Dr. Yashpal
Yashpal Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur,
stated that on 18.08.2001, on 19.08.2001 and also on 21.08.2001,
he had declared Lakhwinder Kaur to be unfit to make statement as
per his endorsements Ex.PH, Ex.PH/1 and Ex.PH/2 made on the
police request.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(5)
PW-5 Taranjit Singh (complainant) stated about the incident in detail in
the same terms as narrated by him to the police at the time of
recording of his statement Ex.PK on the basis of which FIR came
recording
to be lodged. He specifically stated that on the day of occurrence
i.e. on 17.08.2001,, Kewal Singh fired from his gun at Amrik Singh
and Gulzar Singh inflicted a blow with kirpan on the neck of
Amrik Singh.
PW-6 Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Amrik Singh (deceased)
(deceased),, who is another
eye witness, also stated identically as regards the accused having
eye-witness,
hit their jeep into the scooter on which she, Amrik Singh
(deceased) as well as Taranjit Singh (complainant) were riding on
account of which they fell down. She specifically stated that while
Kewal Singh fired from his gun at Amrik Singh, Gulzar Singh
inflicted an injury with kirpan on the neck of Amrik Singh.
PW-7 Sudarshan Kumar, Senior Assistant, office of District Magistrate,
Hoshiarpur produced the record pertaining to the Arms License
Hoshiarpur,
issued to accused Kewal Singh and proved the same as Ex.P6.
PW-8 Urmila Devi, Clerk, SDM Office, Dasuya, proved the driving
license of Kewal Singh as Ex.P7. On the basis of record, she also
stated that the scooter bearing registration No.PAO
No.PAO-2762
2762 was
registered in the name of Rajinder Prasad Sharma and proved the
same as Ex.P1.
PW-9 MHC Jasbir Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into
evidence
idence his affidavit Ex.PQ,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on
17.08.2001, he was posted as Malkhana Incharge, P.S.
P.S.Tanda and
that on the said day, SI Ajay Singh had deposited with him a
parcel containing blood stained soil and a parcel containing an
empty cartridge of 12 bore. He further deposed that on
18.08.2001, a parcel containing bullet and some other case
property was deposited with him in the malkhana and that on
21.08.2001, another
a parcel containing a gun and 6 live cartridgess
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(6)
12 bore were deposited with him in the malkhana. He further
deposed that on 25.08.2001, SI Ajay Singh deposited with him one
parcel containing blood stained kirpan
kirpan. He further deposed that on
31.08.2001, after preparing docket from the office of SSP,
Hoshiarpur, the aforesaid parcels containing blood stained kirpan,,
blood stained soil,
soil, gun, one empty cartridges etc. were sent to the
office of Chemical Laboratory, Chandigarh through Constable
Gurnam Singh on 12.09.2001,, but the parcels containing gun,
empty cartridge and six live cartridges were returned by the
Laboratory after raising certain objections and that it was on
04.10.2001 that the said parcels w
were deposited in the Laboratory
after removing the objections through Constable Gurnam Singh
Singh.
PW-10 Constable Amarjit Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into
evidence his affidavit Ex.PR,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on
17.08.2001, MHC Jasbir Singh, P.S. Ta
Tanda
nda handed over special
reports to him, which he delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate and to
the officers concerned on the same day itself and that the reports
were not tampered with.
PW-11 Constable Gurnam Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into
evidence his affidavit Ex.PS,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on
12.09.2001, MHC Jasbir Singh handed over the case property to
12.09.2001,
him for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Science
Laboratory, Chandigarh. He further deposed that out of the
aforesaid case property, the parcels containing blood stained soil,
kirpan were deposited, whereas remaining parcels were returned
on account of some objections. He further deposed that
subsequently on 04.10.2002 MHC Jasbir Singh again handed over
to him remaining case property i.e. parcels containing empty
cartridge 12 bore, live cartridges etc. after removing the objections
for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Laboratory,
Chandigarh which he accordingly deposited on the same day and
Chandigarh,
that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same
VIMAL KUMAR were not tampered with.
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(7)
PW-12 SI Ajay Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case,
stated in detail with regard to the investigation of the case right
from the lodging of FIR upto filing of challan. He specifically
stated with regard to the disclosure statements made by the
accused and the recoveries got effected pursuant thereto. He also
proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of
investigation.
PW-13 Harbans Singh,
Singh photographer,
hotographer, stated that he had taken photographs
at the spot and proved the same as Ex.P11 to Ex.P18 and the
negatives of the photographs as Ex.P19 to Ex.P26.
PW-14 Kuldeep Singh, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur
Hoshiarpur,, produced the
summoned record pertaining to registration of jeep bearing
registration No.PCR-8871
No.PCR 8871 and stated that the same was registered
in the name of Sital Kaur wife of Sher Singh
Singh.. He proved the same
as Ex.P27.
PW-15 Dharam Pal, Criminal Ahlmad,
Ahlmad, Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Hoshiarpur,
Hoshiarpur, produced the record pertaining to the case
arising out of FIR No.87
No.87 dated 04.06.1997 registered at Police
Station Tanda, under Sections 302/341/34 IPC, wherein Amrik
Singh, who was arrayed as an accused, ha
had been convicted.
PW-16 Constable Balbir Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into
evidence his affidavit Ex.PFF,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on
17.08.2001 while he was posted on general duty at Police Station
Tanda, SHO Ajay Singh had handed over to him the dead body of
Amrik Singh for getting the post-
post-mortem examination conducted
and that he accordingly got the needful done.
7. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement
statements of both the
accused were
ere recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C., wherein the entire
prosecution evidence was put to them, but the accused pleaded that they
VIMAL KUMAR
had been falsely implicated. The accused took a plea that in fact on the day
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(8)
of occurrence,
occurrence Amrik Singh and two unidentified persons had attacked
Gulzar Singh and had
had inflicted injuries to him and that a bullet fired by one
of those unidentified persons hit Amrik Singh and he died. The accused
further stated therein that previously i.e. on 04.06.1997, Amrik Singh
(deceased) had murdered son of Kewal Singh and that dduring
uring the course of
trial, both the accused appeared as prosecution witnesses against Amrik
Singh and that PW Taranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur
Kaur, being relatives of
Amrik Singh,
Singh are inimical to accused and although they had sustained
ned
injuries in a road accident
acc but they have deposed falsely against them. The
accused, however, did not lead any evidence.
8. The trial Court,
Court upon considering the evidence brought on record, returned
its finding to the effect that the prosecution had failed to establish charges
framed against both the accused and consequently
consequently, acquitted them vide
impugned judgment dated 22.05.2003. The reasons assigned by the trial
Court for acquitting both the accused are stated briefly herein under:
(i) that
hat the accused Gulzar Singh ha
had
d also sustained 4 injuries
including 1 grievous injury, which have not been explained by
the complainant/prosecution and nor any FIR was lodged in
respect of the said injuries;
(ii) that
hat there is delay of about 44 days in sending the case property
including blood stained soil, gun etc. to the office of the
including
Chemical Science Laboratory,, which would cast a serious doubt
as regards the sanctity of the report;
(iii) that although injured PWs i.e. Taranji
Taranjitt Singh and Lakhwinder
Kaur had sustained injuries in a ve
vehicular
hicular accident, but they had
given it a different colour and had leveled false allegations
given
implicating the accused; &
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
(9)
(iv) that
hat as per the evidence brought on record, the scooter on which
the deceased and the injured PWs were riding stands registered
in the name of one Rajinder Prasad Sharma and even the jeep in
n
which the accused had allegedly come at the spot stands
registered in the name of one Sital Kaur
Kaur,, but the prosecution not
having examined either of these aforesaid registered owners of
the two vehicles, the same would cast a doubt on the case of
prosecution as to how the said vehicles came into possession of
the deceased/accused.
9. Learned State counsel,
co while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted
that it is a case where both the eye-witnesses
witnesses i.e. PW-5
5 Taranjit Singh
(complainant) and PW-6
PW 6 Lakhwinder Kaur had themselves sustained
injuries, which are duly proved and both of them stated consiste
consistently
ntly
regarding the manner of occurrence and under these circumstances, even if
there are some unexplained injuries on the person of one of the accused i.e.
Gulzar Singh, the same would not be of much significance.. It has further
been submitted that additionally there is strong motive with the accused to
kill Amrik Singh and that even the factum of recovery of the weapons at
the instance of the accused lends corroboration to the case of the
prosecution and under these circumstances, the findings of the trial Court
against the prosecution cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside.
Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment and for holding the accused guilty and to impose appropriate
sentence.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents/accused
submitted that it is a case where the genesis of occurrence had been
suppressed inasmuch as injuries sustained
sustained by Gulzar Singh with sharp
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 10 )
edged weapon including a grievous injury remained unexplained,
plained, which
would cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution
prosecution. It has further been
submitted that as a matter of fact the injuries found on the person of
Taranjit Singh (complainant) and Lakhwinder Kaur were result of a road
accident, as is also recorded in the medical record, but somehow the
complainant and Lakhwinder Kaur have tried to capitalize on their injuries
by giving the accident in question a different co
colour
lour so as to implicate the
accused falsely and to settle scores as both the accused had deposed against
Amrik Singh in an earlier case lodged against Amrik Singh i.e. FIR No.87
dated 04.06.1997 registered at Police Station Tanda, under Sections 302,
341, 34 IPC pertaining to murder of son of Kewal Singh.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of prosecution in any case
suffers from various other infirmities inasmuch as the factum of recovery of
empty cartridge from the spot is not only surrounded by suspicion but it
being a case of firing of single shot only,
only there was no need to take out the
empty cartridge from the barrel of the gun. It has, thus, been submitted that
the judgment under challenge is a well reasoned judgment wherein all the
infirmities in the case of prosecution have
ha been noticed and consequently, it
has been held that the prosecution version is highly doubtful and as such,
the same does not warrant any interference.
12. We have considered the rival submissions
submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
case.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 11 )
13. Itt is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led by the
prosecution as regards the homicidal death of Amrik Singh
Singh. The
prosecution has examined PW-1
PW Dr. R.K.Bagga
R.K.Bagga,, who had conducted the
post-mortem
mortem examination on the dead body of Amrik Singh and found the
following injuries:
“1. Entry wound:
wound there were 7 lacerated punctured wounds over an area
of 6 cm x 3 cm with inverted
inverted margin on right side of chest on the
front, 5 cm below and medial to right nipple. The size of the wounds
varied from ½ cm to ½ cm to 1 cm x ½ cm. These were surrounded
brasion collers.
2. Wound of exit: There were multiple lacerated punctured wounds. 8 in
number, over an area of 8 cm x 5 cm, 7 cm above and outside the left
nipple. These wounds varied in size from 1 cm x 0.6 cm to 5 cm to 3
cm with everted margins on dissection underlying soft tissue, mu
muscles
scles
and pleura, it entered into the mediastinum and after piercing the heart
it caused laceration of left lung and then communicated with the
wound of exit which had irregular everted margins. Pleural cavity
and pericardial cavities were full of semi cl
clotted blood.
Remnants of cartridges and its pallets of number two each were found
while dissection and were put in plastic container and sealed and
handed over to the police for ballistic expert opinion.
3. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on ri
right
ght side of head on
post auricular region. It started at the level of ear lobule. 3 cm behind
the ear and extended upward and backwards and medially upto 3 cm
to the right of the occipital protuberance.
4. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on right knee.
5. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on right shoulder.
6. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on lateral aspect of left thigh on its upper part.
7. Abrasion left cheek 3 cm x 3 cm.
8. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on left elbow.
elbow.”
14. PW-1 Dr. R.K.Bagga opined the cause of death to be the result of shock
and haemorrhage on account of firearm injuries sustained by the deceased,
VIMAL KUMAR which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 12 )
Although learned counsel for the respondents/accused attempted to assail
the opinion of the Doctor
Doctor on the ground that during the course of cross
cross–
examination, PW-1
PW 1 Dr. R.K.Bagga stated that there was no blackening
around the entry wound nor there was scorching, seizing,, flaming of the
part nor the shirt of the deceased was having any charring and that the same
cannot be on account of a shot fired from close range, but having regard to
the fact that there were 7 punctured wounds with inverted margins over the
right side of chest on the front and there were 8 punctured wounds present
outside the left nipple
nipp having everted
erted margins and remnants of cartridges
and its pellets
llets were also found upon dissecting the injuries/body, there is no
room to doubt that the injuries found on the dead body of Amrik Singh
were a result of firearm injuries. The opinion of the Doctor that it was not a
close range fire would not demolish the case of prosecution regarding
receipt of injuries by firearm.
15. The trial Court, however, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused
being mainly influenced by the fact that Gulzar Singh was found to have
sustained 4 injuries, which remained unexplained. PW
PW-3
3 Dr. Amarjit
Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tanda during the course of his
cross-examination
examination stated that on 17.08.2001
17.08.2001,, he had medico legally
examined Gulzar Singh and had found the following injuries on his person:
“1. Incised wound 3×1 cm present on the extensor surface of right
forearm lying transversely 2 cm below the elbow joint. Fresh
bleeding coming from the wound depth to be ascertain by the surgeon
and opinion.
opinion
2. Incised wound 1×0.5 cm present on the medial aspect of right forearm
5 cm below the elbow joint fresh bleeding coming from the wound
depth to be ascertain by the surgeon and opinion.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)( 13 )
3. Superficial abrasion 10×0.5 cm starting from siphesterunum (upp
(upper
er
end) to right side sub costal margin.
4. Incised wound 7×0.5 cm present on the right parietal region 5 cm
above the right ear lying upward vertically deputy to be ascertain by
surgeon and opinion.”
opinion.
16. PW-3 stated that while injury No.1, 2 & 4 were caused by sharp edged
weapon, injury No.3 had been caused by some blunt edged weapon. He
further stated that injury No.2 i.e. injury on the right forearm was declared
as grievous. The factum of existence of injuries on the person of accused
Gulzar Singh has remained undisputed. The prosecution has not explained
about the existence of said injuries on the person of Gulzar Singh and as
such, the Court certainly would be put at great caution before accepting the
version put–forth
forth by the prosecution witnesse
witnesses.
17. In the present case, we find that PW-5
PW 5 Taranjit Singh (complainant) and
PW-66 Lakhwinder Kaur have both stated consistently regarding the manner
of occurrence. Both of them have categorically stated that on 17.08.2001
when they alongwith the deceased
deceased were travelling on a scooter, the accused
who were travelling in a jeep hit their scooter from behind and on account
of which all three of them fell on the road and that while Kewal Singh fired
with his 12 bore gun hitting on the chest of Amrik Singh, Gulzar Singh
inflicted an injury with the sword (kirpan
(kirpan) on the neck of Amrik Singh.
Both the witnesses were cross-examined
cross examined at length on behalf of both the
accused, but their testimonies as regards manner of occurrence could not be
shattered on any count. Further, as per the case of prosecution both the
aforesaid witnesses themselves sustained injuries on account of the fact that
they had fallen off from their scooter when the jeep driven by Kewal Singh
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 14 )
had hit their scooter from the rear and they had sus
sustained
tained injuries. The
prosecution had examined PW-3
PW Dr. Amarjit Singh, who had medically
examined Taranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur on 17.08.2001. PW-3
3 Dr.
Amarjit Singh described the injuries found on the person of Taranjit Singh
and Lakhwinder Kaur as under:
Taranjit Singh:
Singh
“1. Abrasion 2 x 3 cm on the backside of the left elbow joint.
2. Abrasion present on the back of right hand at the level of
metacorpophalangeal joint of middle finger 1 cm x 0.5 cm in size.
3. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm present on the back of right hand at the back of
ring finger.
4. Abrasion 3x 1.5 cm present on the left pattlea region of the left leg.
5. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm present on the extensor surface of left hand at
the back of middle finger.
6. Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm present
present on the parietal region of left side
10 cm away from the upper border of ear and 13 cm from the forehead
hair margin. Advised x-ray
x ray and kept for observation.
observation.”
Lakhwinder Kaur:
Kaur
“1. Lacerated wound 3×2 cm in size present on right above the left medial
mellolus of left foot.
foot. Tendons were visible. Fresh bleeding coming
from the wound.
2. Lacerated wound 5×2 cm skin deep present on the dorsum of left foot at
the base of greater toe. Fresh bleeding coming from the wound.
3. Lacerated wound 5×1.5 cm skin deep present below the right medial
malleolous. Fresh bleeding coming from the wound.
4. Abrasion oval
oval shape 3×2 cm present on the lateral aspect of right hip
joint 2 cm below the superior iliac spine.
5. Lacerated wound 4×4 cm x 1 cm present on the lat
lateral
eral aspect of left
gluteal region 2 cm below the superior iliac spine. Fresh bleeding
coming from the wound.”
wound.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 15 )
18. The factum of existence of injuries on the person of Taranjit Singh
(complainant) and Lakhwinder Kaur could
ould not be demolished. The injuries
found were in the nature of lacerations and abrasions which could have
been on account of fall from the scooter as is also the specific case of the
prosecution that when the jeep driven by accused Kewal Singh hit the
scooter
cooter on which the deceased, Taranjit Singh (complainant) and
Lakhwinder Kaur were travelling, they all ffell down from the scooter and
that the jeep dragged them to a distance of about 15/20 karams
karams. The
presence of the injuries on the person of Taranjit Singh (complainant) and
Lakhwinder Kaur lends assurance as regards their credibility.
19. Although learned counsel representing the respondents tried to assail their
testimonies that they are closely related to the deceased, but it is well
settled and expected
exp that the Courts in such cases would proceed cautiously
and scrutinize the statements minutely. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a
case reported as (2013) 15 SCC 284 Guiram Mondal vs. State of West
Bengal, held that merely because witness is a relative of deceased is not a
reason for discarding his evidence and that testimony of a relative can be
acted upon if the court finds it reliable and trustworthy. The relevant extract
reads as under:
“13. We are also not impressed by the argument of Ms. Rupali S Ghose,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that not much reliance could
be placed on the evidence of eye-witnesses
witnesses as most of them are relatives
of Amrita Dome and not a single independent witness was examined by
the prosecution. In our view, merely because a witness is a relative of the
deceased is not a reason for discarding his evidence. Many a time,
strangers will not come forward depose as witnesses, even if they have
witnessed the crime. Further,
her, possibility of influencing such witnesses is
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)( 16 )
also not uncommon. Evidence of relatives can be acted upon if the court
finds that the evidence of such a witness is reliable and trustworthy.”
20. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble th
thee Supreme Court
in a case reported as (2016) 4 RCR (Criminal) 753 Yogesh Singh vs.
Mahabeer Singh and others.
others The Supreme Court, however, added that the
evidence of a closely related witness is required to be carefully scrutini
scrutinized
ed
and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it. In the
present case, the presence of the eye-witnesses
eye witnesses even though relatives stands
the test of scrutiny inasmuch as they had also sustained injuries pursuant to
their fall from the scooter, which was hit by the jee
jeepp driven by the accused.
As such, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on account of the fact
that they are closely related to the deceased.
21. It also needs to be highlighted that it is a case where the accused had a
strong motive to kill Amrik Singh, as Amrik Singh on an earlier point of
time had murdered the son of accused Kewal Singh and in respect of which
FIR No.87
87 dated 04.06.1997 registered at Police Station Tanda, under
Sections 302, 341, 34 IPC had
ha been lodged. Not only the prosecution had
d
led evidence regarding the said FIR, but the accused also admitted the said
fact in their statements recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Under
these circumstances, when both the eye-witnesses
eye witnesses i.e. PW
PW-5
5 Taranjit Singh
(complainant) and PW-6
PW Lakhwinder
nder Kaur have stated crisply and
consistently regarding the manner of incident and the version unfolded
from the statements is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the
accused would also have a motive to kill Amrik Singh, who had earlier
murdered son of accused Kewal Singh, the factum of non
non-explanation
explanation of
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 17 )
injuries found on the person of accused Gurlzar Singh will pale into
insignificance.
significance. There is no absolute rule that in every case of unexplained
injuries, the case of the prosecution has to be tthrown
hrown out. The only duty
cast on the Court is to scrutinize the case of prosecution with all the more
caution and to be satisfied that all other evidence is consistent with the case
of prosecution. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as
Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu etc. Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2018 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 980 has held as under:
“10. It cannot be held as an invariable proposition that as soon as the accused
received the injuries in the same transaction, the complainant party w
were
ere
the aggressors – it cannot be held as a rule that the prosecution is obliged
to explain the injuries and on failure of the same, the prosecution case
should be disbelieved. It is well settled that before placing the burden on
the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, two
conditions are to be satisfied:-
satisfied: (i) the injuries were sustained by the
accused in the same transaction; and (ii) the injuries sustained by the
accused are serious in nature.
11. This Court considered the effect of non
non-explanation
explanation of injuries sustained
by the accused person in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Chamansing and others 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 725 : (2001) 6 SCC
145 and held as under:-
under:
“17. The first question which ar arises
ises for consideration is what is
the effect of non-explanation
explanation of injuries sustained by the
accused persons. In Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar
2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 537 : (2000) 4 SCC 298 298, Ram
Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1998(4) RCR (Criminal)
54 : (1998) 7 SCC 365 and Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.,
1990(2) RCR (Criminal) 304 : (1990) 3 SCC 190 190, all three–
Judge Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that it
cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that
whenever the accused su sustained
stained an injury in the same
occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury
and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution
VIMAL KUMAR case should be disbelieved. Before non-explanation
explanation of the
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)( 18 )
injuries on the persons of the accused perso persons
ns by the
prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the
court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions:
(i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a
serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been
caused att the time of the occurrence in question. Non Non–
explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when
the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or
where the defence gives a version which competes in
probability with that of the prosecutio
prosecution.
n. Where the evidence
is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can
distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the
injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained
by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently
the whole of the prosecution case
case.”
22. While this Court has already referred to the ocular testimonies of PW
PW-5
5
Taranjit Singh and PW-6
PW Lakhwinder Kaur and also to the medical
evidence, which is absolutely in tune with the case of prosecution, another
piece of evidence which lends assurance and llends
nds corroboration to the case
of prosecution is the factum of recovery of blood stained soil from the spot
and an empty cartridge which as per the
the report of ballistic expert (Ex.PDD)
had been fired from 12 bore gun belonging to accused Kewal Singh.
23. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the
respondents attempted to create a doubt as regards factum of recovery of
empty cartridge
tridge shell by stating that it is a case of a single shot having been
fired which hit the deceased on his chest leading to his death and as such
such,,
there was no need to take out empty shell from the gun and apparently the
same had been planted
pl later on by the
he police. This Court, however, is
unable to accept the said contention inasmuch as the gun recovered
pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Kewal Singh is a
“Trombone
Trombone Action”
Action gun
un i.e. a single barrel pump action gun, wherein
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)( 19 )
cartridges numbering
numbering 4 to 8 may be loaded at a time and after each shot isfired, the empty case is thrown out automatically by the pump action gun.
As per the report of FSL (Ex.PDD),, the firing mechanism of 12 bore single
barrel trombone action gun No.6-08532V
No.6 08532V was in the w
working condition. Asper the report of FSL, the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from
the recovered “Trombone Action” gun. The report of FSL, thus, fully
corroborates the case of prosecution.
24. The trial Court laid undue emphasis on the fact that while the recovery of
blood stained soil and even the empty cartridge was effected on 17.08.2001
and the gun was recovered on 21.08.2001, but the same were delivered in
the office of FSL on 04.10.2001 i.e. after about 44 days. However, it needs
to be noticed that as a matter of fact PW-
PW-99 MHC Jasbir Singh has stated
that on 31.08.2001 after preparing the docket from the office of the SSP,
Hoshiarpur, the case property including parcels containing blood stained
kirpan,, blood stained
stained soil, gun, one empty cartridges
cartridges, live cartridges etc.
were sent to the office of Chemical Laboratory, Chandigarh through
Constable Gurnam Singh on 12.09.2001, but the parcels containing empty
cartridge and live cartridges etc. were returned by the Labor
Laboratory
atory after
raising certain objections. PW-9
PW 9 MHC Jasbir Singh and PW
PW-11
11 Constable
Gurnam Singh both stated that it was only after the said objections were
removed that the remaining case property was deposited on 04.10.2001.
Both PW-99 MHC Jasbir Singh and
an PW-11
11 Constable Gurnam Singh have
stated that as long as case property remain
remained in their possession, the same
was not tampered with. There is nothing on record to show that there has
been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case property as the seals
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 20 )
were found to be intact. Still further, the report of the FSL would be in the
nature of corroborative evidence and would assume much more
significance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whereas the present
case is a case where there is a direct
direct ocular evidence of two injured
witnesses i.e. PW-5
PW 5 Taranjit Singh (complainant) and PW
PW-6
6 Lakhwinder
Kaur,, which is duly corroborated from the medical evidence and under
these circumstances, there is no room to doubt the case of the prosecution
on any count.
25. Rather this Court finds that some observations have been made by the trial
Court, which are against the record. The relevant extract from the
impugned judgment is as under:
“12. In the FIR, it is the case of PW Taranjit Singh at whose instance the
FIR has been recorded that the accused committed the murder of
Amrik Singh by causing gun shot injury and injury by kirpan. It is
also the case of the prosecution in the FIR that the accused seriously
injured PW Lakhwinder Kaur
Kaur and Taranjit Singh received injuries by
fall from the scooter. Now it has to be seen whether PW Lakhwinder
Kaur was given any injury by the accused or not
not.
13. The occurrence in the present case has taken place at 4.15 pm at
village Kurala which is at a distance of about 5 km from police station
Tanda. PW Lakhwinder Kaur was medically examined at Civil
Hospital, Tanda as a case of accidental injuries. After medical
examination of PW Lakhwinder
Lakhwind r Kaur, Medical Officer, Incharge,
Civil Hospital Tanda sent ruqa Ex.DD to the SHO, P.S. Tanda stating
that Lakhwinder Kaur has been admitted as a case of accident at Civil
Hospital, Tanda. In case, Lakhwinder Kaur received injuries in
accident, then it falsify the version of PW Tranjit Singh in the FIR that
the accused
accused seriously injured PW Lakhwinder Kaur
Kaur.”
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 21 )
26. The trial Court on its own has recorded that it is the case of prosecution that
the accused had injured Lakhwinder Kaur,
Kaur, whereas it is neither the case of
prosecution nor even has been stated so by the PWs.. Still further, the trial
Court has laid undue emphasis on the fact that the scooter in question
bearing registration No.PAO-2762
No. on which the deceased and eye
eye–
witnesses were travelling belonged to one Rajinder Prasad Sharma and the
jeep bearing registration
regis No.PCR-8871
8871 in which the accused were
travelling was registered in the name of one Sital Kaur and that none of the
said owners having been examined, the same would affect the case of
prosecution. The trial Court has rather gone astray in giving undue
due
weightage to the factum of non-examination
non examination of the owners of the vehicles
in question.
27. We find that in view of overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution as
regards manner of occurrence wherein two of the eye
eye-witnesses,
witnesses, who
themselves were travelling
travelling on the same scooter on which Amrik Singh
(deceased) was travelling and had also sustained injuries have deposed
consistently regarding the manner of occurrence and the version unfolded
by them is also borne out from the medical evidence and the accuse
accused
d were
found to have a strong motive to eliminate Amrik Singh, minor omission or
infirmities would not render the case of the prosecution doubtful. The trial
Court has laid undue emphasis on certain infirmities the main being non
non–
explanation of injuries on
on the person of accused Gulzar Singh
Singh, non–
examination of owners of the vehicles in question on which the accused
and the deceased were travelling etc. while it has chosen to overlook the
sterling and consistent evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 22 )
testimonies of 2 eye-witnesses
eye i.e. PW
PW-5 Taranjit Singh and PW-6
6
Lakhwinder Kaur and also the motive which lay the accused, which is not
disputed coupled with the fact that the empty shell recovered from the place
of occurrence on the day of occurrence was found to have been fired from
the licensed gun of accused Kewal Singh.
28. Consequently, the findings as recorded by the trial Court with regard to the
innocence of the accused are hereby reversed and both the
accused/respondents namely Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh are held guilty
of having murdered Amrik Singh. As such, while setting aside the
impugned judgment, we held that the charges framed against both the
accused qua offence under Section 302 IPC stand duly proved.
29. As far as offence under Section
ction 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, since no
sanction for prosecution of accused Kewal Singh is brought on record, he
cannot be held guilty for violation of any provisions of the Arms Act and
consequently, his acquittal for offence punishable under the Arms Act is
affirmed.
30. Coming to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the convicts
namely Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh, we have heard both the convicts,
who are present in Court and their statements have also been recorded.
Both the convicts have pleaded that a lenient view be taken in the matter of
sentence on account of their age as both of them are aged above 70 years.
Kewal Singh stated that he has one son,
son, who is mentally challenged and
apart from him there is nobody else in the family to look after him as his
wife also remains sick.
sick Gulzar Singh has stated that he has three sons out
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-149-DBA
DBA-2004 (O&M)
( 23 )
of which two are living separately
s and one is living with him and that his
wife had already expired. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the heinous nature of offence committed by them, both the
convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
31. The appeal stands accepted accordingly. Accused be taken into custody to
undergo the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by this Court.
32. A copy of this
th judgment be supplied to both the accused and copies be also
sent to the quarters concerned
concerned for necessary compliance. Case property be
dealt with in accordance with law upon expiry of period of limitation of
filing appeal.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
GILL)
JUDGE
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
11.03.2025
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.11 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document