Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Amanpreet Singh @ Meetu vs State Of Punjab on 23 June, 2025
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8057/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-01-2025
in CRAD No. 169/2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
AMANPREET SINGH @ MEETU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 120899/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 23-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) :
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Karnwal, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the
judgment dated 7th January, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRAD No. 169 of 2004, whereby
the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and his
conviction as recorded vide judgment dated 18th December, 2023,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 382 and 34 of the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), was affirmed.
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.06.24
2.
16:25:03 IST
Reason: Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel representing the
petitioner, made extensive submissions craving grant of leave to
1
the petitioner against the impugned judgment. He urged that the
testimony of the eyewitness Jaswinder Singh (PW-2), the
complainant, is not reliable. In this regard, he tried to persuade
this Court to consider the so-called inconsistencies existing inter
se between the sworn testimony of Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) vis-à-vis
the version as recorded in his Injury Certificate (Exh. P-2).
3. Dr. Singhvi urged that, according to the Injury Certificate
(Exh. P-2), Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) reported a history of being
assaulted by 6 to 7 individuals using a cricket bat. He argued that
if the assault had indeed been carried out by so many persons,
Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) would not have sustained only the minimal
injuries recorded in the Injury Certificate. Likewise, Amanpreet
Singh alias Banni (the deceased), would also have received a
significantly greater number of injuries. Dr. Singhvi also
emphasised that as a matter of fact, the deceased and the
eyewitness were the aggressors in the present case. They
trespassed into the office of the complainant and tried to indulge
into violence on which the incident took place.
4. Learned counsel urged that neither the trial Court nor the
High Court considered the defence evidence in the correct
perspective and thus, the impugned judgments are liable to be
interfered with.
5. His alternative submission is that the incident took place at
the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. The weapon of
offence allegedly used in the incident was a cricket bat and thus,
the petitioner cannot be attributed knowledge or intention to cause
such injury to the deceased which could lead to his death. Thus,
as per learned counsel, the offence would not travel beyond Section
304 Part II of the IPC.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by Dr. Singhvi and have gone through the material placed
on record.
7. So far as the first argument raised by the learned counsel
regarding the alleged inconsistency in the statement of Jaswinder
Singh (PW-2) recorded in the Injury Certificate is concerned, it is
2
sufficient to state that the narrative in the Injury Certificate,
wherein it is mentioned that 6 to 7 persons were the assailants,
would fall within the category of a previous statement. Unless the
witness is confronted with this previous version during cross-
examination, any contradiction or inconsistency appearing therein
cannot be taken into account as is clear from a plain reading of
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding Section
148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
8. Having gone through the evidence of Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) the
injured eyewitnesses, we find no infirmity in his testimony which
can be considered as creating a doubt on his version. His
deposition does not suffer from contradictions or omissions or
improvements so as to mark a doubt thereupon.
9. Regarding the second argument of Dr. Singhvi for toning down
of the offence, we may note that as per the prosecution case,
deceased Amanpreet Singh alias Banni and Jaswinder Singh (PW-2) had
gone to the office of the accused persons for making a complaint
about the loss of signal in the television network. Without any
provocation offered by the deceased Amanpreet Singh alias Banni and
the Jaswinder Singh (PW-2), the accused persons got enraged and
launched an indiscriminate assault on them by using cricket bats
which was hit on the head of the Amanpreet Singh alias Banni. The
assault proved fatal resulting into the death of Amanpreet Singh
alias Banni. The medical jurist has categorically stated that the
head injury inflicted to the deceased was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10. We do not find any infirmity in the said version of the
prosecution. Hence, the argument advanced by Dr. Singhvi imploring
the Court to interfere on the nature of offence is also untenable.
11. The impugned judgment, i.e., judgment dated 7th January, 2025,
passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
CRAD No. 169 of 2004, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference. Two Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded
the concurrent findings of facts holding the petitioner guilty and
affirming his conviction. We find no reason to interfere in these
3
findings while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred
upon this Court by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
12. The special leave petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4