Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh Etc vs State Ofpb on 31 January, 2025
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(1)
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
1. CR
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M)
Gurcharan Singh & others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. CRA
CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M)
Jagdev Singh & another ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
3. CR
CRR-995-2005 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh & others ... Respondents
Date of Decision
Decision:- 31.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for appellant No.2 in CRA-D-63
63-2005 and
for respondent No.2 in CRR-995
995-2005.
Mr. S.S.Narula, Mr. Baljinder Singh & Mr. Raman B.Garg,
Advocates, for appellant No.2 in CRA
CRA-D-90-DB-2005 and
for respondent No.4 in CRR-995
995-2005.
Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for the petitioner in CRR-995-2005.
2005.
Mr. Harkanwarjeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(2)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
J
1. This
is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned
above mentioned set of two appeals and a
revision petition. The names of all the appellants/petitioner are stated
herein under:
Appeals against conviction:
conviction
Case No. Appellants Findings of the trial Court Relief Sought
CRA-D- 1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC Appellants
63-DB- & u/s
/s 148 IPC seek acquittal
2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi
2005
3. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired)
CRA-D- 1. Jagdev Singh (expired) Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC Appellants
90-DB- & u/s 148 IPC seek acquittal
2. Surinder Pal @ Chindi
2005
Revision by the complainant/injured:
complainant/
Case No. Petitioner/Respondents Findings of the trial Relief Sought
Court
CRR-995- JASWANT SINGH Petitioner seeks
2005 Versus enhancement of
1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) Respondents No.1 to sentence of Resp.
2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi no. 1 to 5
5 stand convicted
convicted.
3. Jagdev Singh (expired) AND ALSO
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi seeks setting aside
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) Respondents
espondents No.
No.6 & of acquittal of
6. Surinder Kaur (expired) 7 stand acquitted Resp. no.6 & 7
7. Satwant Kaur (expired)
2. As per prosecution, pursuant to receipt of an intimation on 22.03.2002 at
Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur
regarding admission of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh
Singh, the police
visited the hospital. While Amarjit Singh was found to have been referred
to DMC, Ludhiana,
Ludhiana the police was able to record the statement of Jaswant
Singh (Ex.PL). Amarjit Singh, however, could not survive and
succumbed to injuries in DMC, Ludhiana on 26.03.2002.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(3)
3. The FIR (Ex.PQ) came to be lodged on the basis of state
statement (Ex.PL)
made by Jaswant Singh (complainant),
(complainant), wherein he stated that he is an
agriculturist and that about two years back,
back, they had purchased some land
in the area of Bassi Daud Khan from Balwant Singh where Ravail Singh
had sown sugarcane crop and as had been agreed
agreed, Gurcharan Singh etc.
had harvested the sugarcane crop. On 22.03.2002 at about 7.30 AM
AM,
Gurcharan Singh, his son Gurmit Singh @ Laddi, his brother
brother-in-law
Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, Kaka son of Ram
Lubhaya, Surinder Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and Satwinder Kaur
wife of Jagdev Singh started ploughing the land in question with a
‘Massey’ tractor. The complainant alleged that when he objected to the
same and asked them (Gurcharan Singh & others) that some person from
the village be associated, as had been agreed earlier and thereafter they
could plough the land,
land Gurcharan Singh raised a ”lalkara’ exhorting his
companionss that the complainant be not spared. Gurcharan Singh
inflicted a blow with ‘kirpan’
‘ ‘ on the left han
hand of the complainant. Jagdev
Singh gave a blow with ‘dang’
‘ on complainant’s left shoulder. Kaka
inflicted a blow with ‘dang’
‘ ‘ on the left thigh of the complainant. The two
ladies threw brick-bats.
brick bats. The complainant further alleged that around that
time Amarjit Singh also came there so as to collected ”Theka’ in respect
of land, but he was also given brick-bats
brick bats blows by the ladies on his head
and resultantly he fell down. All the accused took Amarjit Singh to their
fields on their tractor.
tractor Gurcharan Singh
gh was exhorting them that he
(Amarjit Singh) be not spared and be killed. Gurmit Singh inflicted a
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(4)
blow with ‘kirpan’
‘ on the right hand of Amarjit Singh. Jagdev, Surinder
Singh and Kaka inflicted blows with their respective ”dangs’ to Amarjit
Singh hitting
ing him on various parts of body. On account of hue and cry
having been raised, father of Amarjit Singh came to the spot and shifted
the complainant and Amarjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur from
where Amarjit Singh was referred to DMC, Ludhiana
Ludhiana. The complainant
further stated therein that the entire occurrence was witnessed by his
brother Surinder Singh and that all the accused after the occurrence had
run away alongwith their respective weapons. It is alleged that the motive
for inflicting injuries
injuries was that the accused wanted to take possession of
the land, which had been purchased by the complainant & others and that
they had also come to take possession of the same and when they
restrained the accused from doing so, then he (complainant) and Amarjit
Singh were caused injuries.
4. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation
during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of
Amarjit Singh were conducted. The dead body of Amarjit Singh was got
subjected
ubjected to post-mortem
post mortem examination. The medical record pertaining to
injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh was collected from the Civil Hospital,
Hoshiarpur. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a
rough site plan. Statements of witnesses
es were recorded in terms of
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of investigation, the police found 5
out of 7 accused to have participated in the commission of offence,
whereas 2 of the co-accused
co accused i.e. the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(5)
Satwant Kaur were found innocent. Accordingly, challan was presented
against 5 accused namely Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh @ Ladi, Jagdev
Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka on 24.05.2002 in
the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Magistrate, Hoshiarpur,
who upon finding that the facts prima facie disclosed commission of
offences punishable under Sections 302/324/323/148/149 IPC committed
the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.06.2002. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur finding sufficient grounds to
presume that the accused had committed the offence in question
accordingly framed charges against 5 accused on 04.09.2002.
5. Subsequently, after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the
trial Court, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. for summoning two more co-accused
accused i.e. Surinder Kaur and
Satwant Kaur, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2003 and upon
securing their presence, fresh charges were framed against all the 7
accused on 13.05.2003.
6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 9 PWs,
the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to he
herein-under:-
PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan,
Chohan, who had conducted post
post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh, described 8
injuries found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death
was the injury
injur on the head as well as other injuries leading to
shock and haemorrhage,
haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature. He proved the copy of post
post-mortem
report as Ex.PA.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)(6)
PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiar
Hoshiarpur, who
had medico legally examined Amarjit Singh, when he was
initiall taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, proved the MLR in
initially
respect of Amarjit Singh as Ex.PD, wherein he described 9
injuries found on the person of Amarjit Singh. He also stated that
on the same day, he had also medico legally examined Jaswant
Singh and had found three injuries on his person which he
described in MLR (Ex.PE).
(
PW-3 Dr. Ashish Ohri, Registrar, Department of Surgery, DMCH,
Ludhiana, produced the record pertaining to admission of Amarjit
Ludhiana,
Singh in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and
stated that the patient (Amarjit Singh) expired on 26.03.2002 and
that he had sent the intimation to the police in this regard.
PW-4 Jaswant Singh – complainant at whose instance the FIR in
question had been lodged stated broadly in tune with the version
recorded in the FIR, which has already been referred to above.
PW-5 Surinder Singh,
Singh, brother of the complainant, who as per the FIR
hadd witnessed the occurrence stated in support of the case of
prosecution and has described the occurrence broadly in tune with
the allegations recorded in the FIR.
PW-6 Kulwant Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, produced the
registration certificate in respect of tractor bearing registration
No.
No.PB-07-H-1748,
, which as per record was found to be registered
in the name of Gurcharan Singh.
S
PW-7 Raj Kumar, Patwari, stated that he had prepared the scaled site
plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PN.
PW-8 SI Onkar Dutt stated that on 22.03.2002, he was posted at Police
Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when an information was received
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)(7)
regarding admission of Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh in Civil
Hospital, Hoshiarpur and pursuant to the same, he went to the
Civil Hospital, where he came to know that Amarjit Singh had
already been referred to DMCH, Ludhiana. However, Jaswant
Singh was present and he recorded
recorded his statement (Ex.PL), which
was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. He further
stated that upon receipt of information on 27.03.2002 regarding
death of Amarjit Singh, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana and
prepared inquest report Ex.PC and got the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh conducted. He
stated that 4 of the accused namely Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh,
Surinder Pal and Surinder Singh were arrested on 06.04.2002, as
they had surrendered in the Court on 04.04.2002. He further
stated that he had interrogated Gurmit Singh on 08.04.2002.
During the course of cross-examination,
cross examination, he stated that no recovery
of any weapon was effected from the accused and that he had
gone to the place of occurrence on 5th day and that he had not
lifted any blood stained soil from the spot.
PW-9 ASI Mohinder Pal stated that on 15.04.2002, he was posted at
Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when he was entrusted with the
investigation of the case. He stated that accused Gurcharan Singh
had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.04.2002 and
was arrested on 24.04.2002. He further deposed that on
26.04.2002
.04.2002,, he interrogated Gurcharan Singh during the course of
which he made a disclosure statement Ex.PV regarding his tractor
No.PB
No.PB-07-H-1748 and pursuant to the same, the said tractor was
taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW. He further
stated with regard to investigation conducted by him and that
upon conclusion of investigation, challan had be
been presented.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(8)
7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused
were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded false
implication. Accused Gurcharan Singh, however, raised a plea that he
along with Satwant Kaurr and Gian Kaur was owner of the property in
question and that Gian Kaur had sold her share to Balwant Singh and
Balwant Singh further sold it to Jaswant Singh – complainant, but the
share was sold without possession. He further stated that on the day of
occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question. He pleaded
therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible
possession
ion of the property and that he had furnished surety bonds for
release of Amarjit Singh, as Amarjit Singh was undergoing life
imprisonment for murder. He further stated that when Amarjit Singh and
Jaswant Singh had come on a tractor belonging to the compl
complainant, the
tractor ‘jumped
jumped’ and resultantly Amarjit Singh fell down from the tractor
and had sustained injuries and that the police, however, planted a false
case upon the accused. The accused in their defence examined as many as
4 PWs, the gist of whose statements is stated to herein-under:
DW-1 Parveen Puri, Senior Clerk working in Punjabi newspaper ‘Ajit’
on the basis of the summoned record, stated that in the newspaper
published on 09.08.1996, a public notice had been issued
regarding disinheritance of Gurmit Singh by his father Gurcharan
Singh He produced the photocopy of public notice as Ex.D2.
Singh.
DW-2 Darshan Singh, SP, Vigilance stated that pursuant to an
application filed by Kamal Saini wife of accused Surinder Singh,
he had conducted an enquiry and had found that Surinder SinghVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)(9)
was on duty on the relevant day at Municipal Committee,
Hoshiarpur.
DW-3 Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, Criminal Branch, Punjab &
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh brought the file pertaining to
CRM
CRM-44768-M-2003
2003 titled ‘Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
& others‘ and produced the certified
tified copy of the petition as Ex.D4.
DW-4 HC Des Raj,
Raj, Police Station Dadar, Hoshiarpur, brought the record
pertaining to the following FIRs
FIR exhibited as Ex.D5, D6, D7 &
D8:
1. FIR No.147 dated 28.06.1998 under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC
registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of
Gurdip Singh @ Babbi against Amarjit Singh & others
2. FIR No.149 dated 06.07.1998 under Sections 323, 452 IPC
registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of
Joginder Kaur against Amarjit Singh & others
3. FIR No.13 dated 15.01.1999 under Sections 452, 148, 149, 429
IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at
Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Jagdip
Singh against Amarjit Singh & others
4. FIR No.123 dated 14.05.1999 under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148,
149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the
statement of Jarnail Singh against Amarjit Singh & others
8. The accused also tendered into evidence report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
pertaining to FIR No.395
No. dated 08.11.2002 and orders passed by the Civil
Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Suit No.303 of
1999 and thereafter closed their evidence.
9. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record,
acquitted Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur of all the
charges framed against them, but held that the prosecution had been
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 10 )
successful in establishing its case against Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh,
Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka and
accordingly, convicted
convicted and sentenced them as under:
1. 1. Gurcharan Singh, To undergo life imprisonment under Section 302
2. Gurmit Singh, IPC read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine
3. Jagdev Singh, of Rs.2000/- each
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka
2. 1. Gurcharan Singh, To undergo RI for 3 years under Section 148 IPC
2. Gurmit Singh,
3. Jagdev Singh,
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka
3. Gurcharan Singh To undergo RI for 2 years under Section 324 IPC
and to further pay a fine of Rs.1000/
Rs.1000/-
4. 1. Jagdev Singh To undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323
2. Surinder Pal @ Kaka IPC
10. It may here be mentioned that out of 5 accused, who had been convic
convicted
and sentenced by the trial Court,
Court, 3 have expired and proceedings qua
them already stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024. Even the two
acquitted co-accused
co namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @
Satvinder Kaur (respondents No.6 & 7 in CRR
CRR-995-2005) have expired
and proceedings qua them also stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024.
Consequently, the appeals as well as revision survive only against 2
convicts/accused namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @
Chindi.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned
judgment as regards conviction of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal
@ Chindi,, submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence
in correct perspective and that admittedly it is a case where accused party
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 11 )
was in possession of the agricultural land where the occurrence had taken
place and that the complainant party had come there to take forcible
possession of the said land leading to the incident in question. It has been
submitted
tted that even if the allegations pertaining to the accused having
inflicting injuries to the complainant and to the deceased are taken to be
correct, still no offence can be said to be committed by the accused, as
they had acted in self-defence.
self
12. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case
where a very specific account of the occurrence has been narrated by the
complainant in the FIR, wherein not only all the accused have been
specifically named, but roles are also attri
attributed specifically to them. It
has been submitted that the complainant – Jaswant Singh (PW-4) while in
the witness-box
witness box stated absolutely in consonance with the version got
recorded by him in the FIR, which is corroborated not only by the other
eye-witness
witness i.e. PW-55 Surinder Singh, but is duly borne out from the
medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW
PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh
and PW-22 Dr. O.P.Gojra,
O.P.Gojra who have proved the medical record in the
shape of post-mortem
post mortem report and medico legal report and have also
furnished opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased. Leaned State
counsel further submitted that even if the contention raised before this
Court as regards accused having caused injuries in self
self-defence is
accepted to be correct, still it is apparent that the injuries caused by the
accused are far in excess of the threat perception inasmuch as none from
the complainant side was armed with any weapon and in fact all the 7
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 12 )
accused were out-numbering
out the 2 persons from the complainant side i.e.
the complainant and the deceased. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for
dismissal of the appeals.
13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision
petition submitted that the sentence
sentence imposed upon the two accused i.e.
Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi is on the lesser side and
that the same be enhanced and compensation be also awarded out of the
enhanced fine that may be imposed.
14. We have considered rival submissions
submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
case.
15. Before proceeding to examine the oral evidence led by the complainant to
support his version and also the plea of self
self-defence being raised by the
accused, it is apposite
appo to first of all examine the medical record pertaining
to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the deceased and the
cause of death. It is the specific case of the complainant that on
22.03.2002, the accused
accused had inflicted injuries to complainant – Jaswant
Singh and also to deceased – Amarjit Singh
Singh. The prosecution has
examined PW-2
PW Dr. O.P.Gojra,, who stated that on 22.03.2002, Amarjit
Singh, who had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur was
medico
co legally examined by him and he had found the following injuries
on his person:
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)( 13 )
“1. There was a swelling of 5 cm in diameter on left temporal region just
above the left pinna. An abrasion of 5 cm on the swelling there was
bleeding from left ear. Surgical
Surgical opinion was advised.
2. Bleeding left ear. Advised ENT and Surgical opinion.
3. Deformity with un-natural
natural moment of left leg in lower part. Ortho
opinion was advised.
4. Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen.
Ortho opinion advised.
5. An incised wound on the dorsal surface of right thumb underlying
bone cut (near and behind the nail). Fresh bleeding was present.
6. An abrasion on the medical side of right forearm in middle (13 x 2
cm) advised X-ray.
X
7. Multiple contusions
contusions of left elbow joint extending to arm (all along) X
X-
ray was advised.
8. Multiple reddish contusions ranging from 30 cm x 3 cm to 4 cm x 3
cm on back. (Whole) X-ray
X ray was advised.
9. Multiple abrasions on right leg in lower 1/3rd (Reddish abrasion).
Advised X-ray.”
X
16. He further deposed that injury No.5 had been declared grievous and that
the weapon used for causing the said injury was sharp while the remaining
injuries had been caused with a blunt edged weapon. During the course of
cross-examination,
examination, he stated that injury No.5 could also be possible on
account of striking with the edge of the mudguard of tractor and the
remaining could be possible on account of fall from the tractor. Amarjit
Singh was referred to the DMCH, Ludhiana on the same day where he
remained under treatment, but ultimately succumbed to injuries on
26.03.2002. The dead body was got subject to post
post-mortem examination,
which was conducted by PW-1
PW Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan
Chohan, who proved
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 14 )
the post-mortem
mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries on the dead
body as under:
“1. Blackish abrasion of 0.5 cm in diameter above the left pinna present
and there was a swelling 5 cm in diameter.
2. Deformity of fracture of left leg in lower part was pres
present on
dissection of the leg, the tibia and fibula was fractured in the lower
1/3 of the bones. There was clotted blood present all around the
fracture.
3. Swelling of right hand with no underlying fracture.
4. Incised wound on dorsal surface of the right thumb present,
underlying bone cut behind the nail.
5. Blackish abrasion on medial side of right forearm in its middle 13×2
cm.
6. Blackish multiple abrasion contusion present on the left elbow joint
extending to arm.
7. Multiple contusion ranging from 30 cm to 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm its
back.
8. Multiple abrasion on right leg in lower 1/3 black in colour.
colour.”
17. PW-11 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan opined that cause of death of Amarjit
Singh was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leadi
leading to shock
and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. During the course of cross
cross-examination, PW-1 Dr.
Surinder Singh
Sing Chohan stated that there could be possibility of injuries
having been caused to Amarjit Singh
Singh if he had fallen from the tractor, but
the same could be possible if he is dragged in different postures. The
MLR as well as the post-mortem
post mortem report clearly show the existence of the
injuries, which were found on the person of Amarjit Singh immediately
when he was taken to the hospital
ospital on the day of occurrence itself.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 15 )
18. Although during the course of cross-examination,
cross examination, the accused put
questions to the Doctors concerned regarding possibility of the injuries
having been caused on account of fall from the tractor, which the Doctors
did not categorically deny, but PW-1
PW 1 Dr. Suridner Singh Chohan has
clarified that the possibility could only be there in case the deceased was
also dragged in different postures. In the present case, a perusal of the
descriptionn of injuries shows that the injuries are on various parts of body
on the left and right side. It is not borne out from any record that the
deceased had been dragged in different directions after the alleged fall
from the tractor. Under these circumstances,
circumstances, the suggestion on behalf of
the accused that the injuries were not caused by the accused but were
result of fall from the tractor is solely misconceived. It is, thus, held that
the injuries as found on the person of the deceased had been inflicted to
him by some persons and is not result of fall from the tractor. PW-1 Dr.
Surinder Singh Chohan has categorically opined regarding the cause of
death to be the injuries. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity
of the opinion of the Doctor in this regard. Consequently, it is held that
Amarjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him.
19. As regards the injuries sustained by complaina
complainant – Jaswant Singh, he was
also taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on the day of occurrence itself i.e.
22.03.2002,, where he was medico legally examined by PW
PW-2 Dr.
O.P.Gojra, who found the following injuries on his person:
“1. Two parallel incised wounds 3 cm x 2 cm (5 cm apart on the left
palmer surface just below the matacarpo region lower starts justVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)( 16 )
before the wound No.1. Fresh bleeding present.) Advised X
X-
ray.
2. Pain in left shoulder joint. No external mark of injury see
seen.
n.
Advised X-ray.
3. Complaint of pain in left thigh in the middle. No external mark
of injury seen. Advised X-ray.””
20. PW-22 Dr. O.P.Gojra opined that injury No.1 has been caused with a sharp
edged weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blu
blunt
nt weapon.
He further stated that all the three injuries were declared as simple in
nature. Nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross
cross-
examination of the Doctors so as to doubt the existence of the injuries on
the person of injured/deceased
injured/deceased or as regards the nature.
21. PW-44 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness
witness-box described the
manner in which the injuries were caused to him as well as to Amarjit
Singh on 22.03.2002, when they had objected to ploughing of fields by
Gurcharan
charan Singh & others. He stated that when he had objected to the
same, Gurcharan Singh had raised a ‘lalkara
‘lalkara’ and had inflicted an injury
with the help of ‘kirpan’
‘ on his right hand and that thereafter Jaswant
Singh inflicted a blow with ‘dang’
‘ on his left shoulder and Surinder Pal
@ Kaka also gave a blow with ‘dang’
‘ ‘ on his left thigh. He further stated
that the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur started pelting
brick-bats
bats as a result of which injuries were caused on the head of Amarji
Amarjit
Singh, who had also come there to collect lease money from the
complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna.
He further stated that Amarjit Singh was lifted by all the 7 accused in the
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 17 )
tractor and was taken to wheat fields belonging
belonging to them and that Gurmit
Singh had inflicted a blow with ‘kirpan’
‘ ‘ on the right hand of Amarjit
Singh.. He further deposed that Gurcharan Singh had raised a ”lalkara’
exhorting his companions that Amarjit Singh be not spared and be killed
and upon which Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh @ Chindi and Surinder Pal
@ Kaka started inflicting ‘dang’ blows on the person of Amarjit Singh.
He further stated that his brother Surinder Singh had also witnessed the
occurrence.
ence. PW-55 Surinder Singh, brother of the complainant, also gave a
narration of the incident in the identical manner, as stated by PW
PW-4
Jaswant Singh (complainant).
22. The ocular version as regards inflicting of injuries by the accused, as spelt
out byy the aforesaid two witnesses i.e. PW-4
PW 4 Jaswant Singh (complainant)
and PW-55 Surinder Singh,
Singh remained un-sh
shattered despite lengthy cross-
examination and as such, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the
findings of the trial Court to the extent that the injuries found on the
person of injured/complainant and the deceased had been caused by the
accused. However, the material question before this Court is as to
whether the injuries caused by the accused had been caused by them in
their self-defence
defence so as to protect their property which they were in
possession i.e. land where the occurrence had taken place.
23. It is pertinent to notice that it is the specific case of the complainant that
they had purchased the land about 2 years back from Balwant Singh and
that Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop in the field which the
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 18 )
complainant had purchased and that it had be
been agreed that Gurcharan
Singh after harvesting the sugarcane crop would hand over the possession
to the complainant. The said fact is not only stated in the FIR, but has
also been stated so in the witness-box
box by PW-4 Jaswant Singh
(complainant) In fact in the FIR, the complainant had also got recorded
(complainant).
that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the property in question to
take possession. During the course of cross
cross-examination, PW-4 Jaswant
Singh stated as under:
“………..It
………..It is however correct that Swaran Singh was the father of Piar
Piara
Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The estate of Swaran Singh devolved upon
his sons only on the basis of the Will
ill and the daughters of Swaran Singh
were consenting parties to Will. I do not know if Satwant Kaur and
Joginder Kaur instituted a suit (civil) claiming the share to the estate of
their father before the present incident. The disputed land which we
purchased from Balwant Singh of Swarn Cinema is the same land which
was belonging to Piara Singh. The compromise that the possession of
the land would be delivered to us after harvesting the sugarcane crop was
written compromise.
compromise. The written compromise was handed over to the
police and copy of the same is also with us. I can produce the
compromise document in the court.”
court.
24. It has also been admitted by the complainant that he had been proceeded
against for security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. about 8
days prior to the occurrence, which had been initiated on an application
filed by Gurcharan Singh and his wife and that he (complainant) also
moved an application. The aforesaid position suggests that it is a case
where the complainant party had purchased the land in question from
Balwant Singh, but at the time of purchase, possession of the pr
property had
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 19 )
not been handed over to the complainant and it had been agreed that the
same would be handed over after the sugarcane crop standing on the fields
is harvested by Gurcharan Singh. It appears that Gurcharan Singh &
others, however, did not hand over
over possession of the land in question
despite having harvested the sugarcane crop and rather started ploughing
the land, which was objected to by the complainant resulting in the fight
in question. In other words, although physical possession of the prop
property
was supposed to be delivered to the complainant party after harvesting of
sugarcane crop, but the same was not delivered and apparently it is the
accused who were still in possession of the same.
25. Under these circumstances, when the accused were in possession of the
property in question and the complainant and Amarjit Singh (deceased)
went on the tractor to the fields, the accused who were in possession of
the property, even if in unauthorized possession, did have a right of self
self-
defence to protect
protec their property. The occurrence having taken place in
the disputed property and the accused apprehending forcible dispossession
caused injuries to the complainant and to the deceased
deceased.
26. However, it needs to be noticed that it is a case where the complainant
was accompanied by one more person only i.e. Amarjit Singh, whereas
the accused were numbering seven. Neither the complainant nor the
deceased were stated to be armed with any weapon. Under these
circumstances, the act of the accused having inflicting as many as 9
injuries to Amarjit Singh and 3 injuries to Jaswant Singh including 1
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 20 )
incised wound on each of them, was certainly not justified and the said
action was not in proportion to the threat perception.
27. Some of the relevant provisions pertaining to ‘self defence’ as embodied
in IPC need to be borne in mind. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is
an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Under
Section 97 every person has a right,
right, subject to the restrictions contained in
Section 99, to defend his own body, and the body of another person
person,
against any offence affecting the human body. Under Section 99 the right
of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm th
than it
is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Under Section 100, right
of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence
which occasions the exercise of such right is an assault which reasonably
causes an apprehension of death
death or grievous hurt, amongst others. Under
Section 101, save as provided by Section 99, the right extends to the
voluntary causing to the assailment of any harm other than death. Under
Section 102 the right once available continues as long as an apprehens
apprehension
of danger to the body continues. When the apprehension of danger has
ceased and yet a person continues his attack, he exceeds the right of
private defence. Section 103 defines situations where such right can even
extend to causing death.
28. As alreadyy noticed above, it is a case where not only the complainant
(Jaswant Singh) and the deceased (Amarjit Singh) were outnumbered by
the accused, but they were even unarmed. Under these circumstances,
even if the complainant and the deceased ha
had entered into the property
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 21 )
possessed by the accused, the same did not give them a right to cause
death of Amarjit Singh. Though during the course of arguments, learned
State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the
complainant/revisionist submitted that a specific plea of self
self-defence not
having been raised by the accused during the course of trial, the same
cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, but this Court is unable to
subscribe to the said view, as it has consistently been held that a plea of
self-defence
defence even if not taken in the statement recorded in terms of
Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross-examination,
cross examination, still the same can be
taken into account when the facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidence clearly show that
that the injuries have been caused in self
self-defence.
It, needs to be mentioned that accused Gurcharan Singh
Singh, in any case, in
his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically
stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in possession of the property
in question though he also admitted that otherwise the property had been
purchased by Jaswant Singh (complainant) from one Balwant Singh. He
further pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for
taking forcible possession
possessio of the property.
29. A three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in 2001(4) RCR(Criminal)
556 Kashi Ram Vs. State of M.P.,
M.P. while considering the right of an
accused to raise plea of self-defence
self defence held as under:
“24. The High Court was also not right in cr
criticising and discarding
availability of plea of self-defence
self defence to the accused persons on the
ground that the plea was not specifically taken by the accused in
their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)( 22 )
and because the accused Prabhu di
did not enter in the witness box.
Though Section
Sectio 105 of the Evidence Act enacts a rule regarding
burden of proof but it does not follow therefrom that the plea of
private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall
not be available to be considered
considered though made out from the
evidence available in the case.
case. A plea of self
self-defence can be taken
by introducing such plea in the cross
cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under
Section 313 Criminal Procedure
Procedure Code, 1973 or by adducing
defence evidence. And, even if the plea is not introduced in any one
of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of
submissions by relying on the probabilities and circumstances
obtaining in the case as held
eld by this Court in Vijayee Singh‘s case
(supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be
compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference
can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person
has chosen to abstain
abstain from the witness box
box.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 333 Ananta Deb
Singha Mahapatra vs. State of West Bengal discussed the law regarding
‘self-defence’
defence’ in detail touching all the relevant aspects. The broad
principles of self-defence
self defence as may be culled out from the same are stated
herein-under:
under:
(1) It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he
acted in self-defence – If the circumstances show that the right of private
defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider
such a plea – In a given case the Court can consider it even if the accused
has not taken it, if the same is avail
available to be considered from the
material on record.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 23 )
(2) Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of establishing the plea of
self defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by
self-defence
showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea on the basis
of the material on record. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and AIR 1979
Supreme Court 391 relied.
(3) An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required
to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances
transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself.
(4) Accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence
beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case
that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.
(5) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the
aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the
injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must
necessarily be raised that the
the accused persons had caused injuries in
exercise of the right of private defence.
31. The facts of the case do suggest that the accused
accused, immediately upon being
threatened of dispossession,
dispossession caused injuries to protect their possession,
but despite the fact that a lesser number of injuries could have protected
their possession, they proceeded on to inflict a large number of injuries to
the unarmed complainant and deceased and as such, it can safely be held
that all of them formed a common intention at the sp
spur of the moment to
inflict a large number of injuries while having a knowledge that such large
number of injuries could even cause death. Consequently, even if the
injuries specifically attributed to two of the appellants namely Gurmit
Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi may not be held to fatal
injuries, but both of them would be vicariously liable for the injuries
caused collectively by all the accused and the resultant death. However,
having regard to the fact that it is a case of injuries caused in self-defence,
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 24 )
the accused thus cannot be held liable for committing an offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC. In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab,
1998 SCC(Criminal) 248,
248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case where
accused persons assaulted the deceased
deceased in exercise of their right of private
defence of their property and had caused his death, set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and convicted him for
offence punishable under Section 304 Part
Part-II IPC, while observing that
the accused had exceeded his right of self defence by causing death. The
relevant extracts are reproduced herein-under:
herein under:
“1. For causing the death of Balkar Singh, Jarnail Singh, the appellant before
us. Modan Singh and Teja Singh were tried for and convicted of the
offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session
Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Teja Singh but
upheld the convictions of the appellant and Mohan Singh. Aggrieved
thereby, only the appellate has filed this appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court has recorded
a categorical finding that the plot of land on which the incident took
place was in exclusive possession of the accused persons and that on tthe
fateful day the deceased along with his brother Avtar Singh (PW
(PW-1),
father Ajaib Singh (now dead) and one Kulwinder Singh had gone to that
plot and started ploughing it with a tractor. The High Court held that it is
at that time that the accused persons appeared there and assaulted Balkar
Singh with the weapons, they were carrying. In the context of the above
findings with which we are in complete agreement there cannot be any
manner of doubt that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in
exercise of their right of private defence of their property in which the
deceased and other members of his family had criminally trespassed.
However, their such right, though exercised in good faith and without
premeditation, did not extend to death as the offence ccommitted by the
deceased did not attract Section
Sectio 103 Indian Penal Code Considering this
aspect of the matter and the nature of weapons used and the number ofVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)( 25 )
injuries inflicted, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of Exception
Exception 2 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code.
3. For the foregoing discussion we set aside the conviction of the appellant
under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section
304(Part II), Indian Penal Code. For the conviction so recorded we
sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appeal
sentence
is, thus, disposed of.”
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of
the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the case in hand would at
best attract
ct an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
33. Consequently, both the appeals i.e. CRA-D
D-63-DB-2005 and CRA-D-90-
DB-2005 filed on behalf of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @
Chindi respectively, are partly accepted to the extent that their conviction
for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is set
aside, but they are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304
Part II IPC read with 34 IPC. Since it is a case where accused had acted
in self-defence,
defence, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148
IPC cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the nature of injur
injuries
and the nature of weapons used and also the fact that the occurrence had
taken place more than two decades back, in our opinion a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years would be ends of justice. It is so
ordered. The fine as imposed by the trial
trial Court shall, however, remain
unaltered.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 26 )
34. For the reasons recorded above, criminal revision i.e. CRR-995-2005 filed
on behalf of the complainant/injured seeking enhancement of sentence in
respect of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi merits
dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
35. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary
compliance.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
GILL)
JUDGE
31.01.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Vimal
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document