Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(1)
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
1. CR
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M)
Surjeet Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
2. CRA
CRA-S-394-SB-2005 (O&M)
Sumer Singh & others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
Date of Decision
Decision:- 07.02.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, for the appellant/s.
Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. AG, Haryana.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
J
1. This
is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned
above mentioned two appeals arising out
of judgment dated 27.01.2005 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2005
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Jind
Jind. While CRA-D-
222-DB-2005
2005 has been filed on behalf of appellant – Surjeet Singh
challenging his conviction for offence punishable
punishable under Section 302 IPC,
CRA-S-394
394-SB-2005
2005 has been filed by Sumer Singh, Dilawar @ Dalel
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(2)
Singh and Om Parkash challenging their conviction for offence
punishable under Section 323 IPC. However, since the appellants Sumer
Singh and Dilawar @ Dalel Singh have expired, proceedings qua them
stand abated vide order dated 31.01.2025. As such, CRA
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
survives only qua appellant No.3 – Om Parkash.
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.516
No.516 dated 21.11.2001 registered at Police
Station Safidon, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections
24, 54, 59 of the Arms Act (Ex.P-1A), at the instance of Jaswant Singh
Singh. It
is the case of prosecution that on 21.11.2001, pursuant to receipt of
intimation from the CHC,
C Safidon regarding admission of Krishan
Krishan,
Jaswant Singh, Nand Ram, Dhanpati, Kamla and Angoori in injured
condition,, the police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of
Jaswant Singh (Ex.P1)
(Ex.P leading to lodging of FIR
FIR. The complainant
Jaswant Singh alleged that there had been altercation between him and
Hawa Singh, Satbir, Dharam Singh, Sumer Singh and Surjeet during the
last several days with regard to ‘dol’ (boundary made by raising soil) of
the fields. On 21.01.2001, the respectable of the village had got the
matter compromised where the complainant alongwith Nand Ram
Ram,
Krishan and Om Parkash were present and on the other side
side, Hawa Singh,
Dharam Singh, Sumer Singh and Surjeet were there. The Panchayat was
held till 3:00 PM and a compromise was arrived at, which was yet to be
reduced into writing. However, Hawa Singh and Surjeet walked off from
Panchayat while saying that they do not accept the compromise and went
towards their houses. After a short while
while, Hawa Singh armed with
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(3)
gandassa came to the chowk outside Darwaja (entrance of house) of
Krishan and raised a lalkara exhorting his companions to teach Jaswant
Singh a lesson for straightening the ‘dol’
‘ ‘ and upon which Dilawar @
Dalel Singh armed with gandassa,, Om Parkash armed with gandassa,
Dharam Singh armed with gun, Surjeet armed with gun, Sumer Singh
armed with gandassa,, Dharam Pal armed with gandassa came there.
They had all come with a common object and attacked them. Dilawar @
Dalel Singh gave blows with gandassa while using it like a stick on left
side of head, left arm and fingers of right hand of complainant Jaswant
Singh.. Om Parkash gave a blow with gandassa on the head of Nand Ram
and also gave thrust-wise
thrust blows on his chin and mouth. Surjeet fired a
shot from his double barrel licensed gun at Krishan hitting him on his
abdomen. Upon alarm being raised, complainant’s wife Angoori, Kamla
wife of Om Parkash and Dhanpati wife of Prem reached at the place of
occurrence. Hawa Singh inflicted 2 injuries
juries on the head of Angoori with
the help of gandassa and also gave a blow of gandassa while using it like
a stick on her neck and left elbow. Sumer Singh gave a blow with
gandassa on the left wrist of Kamla and another blow on her toe by using
the gandassa
assa like a stick. Dharam Singh fired repeatedly in the air with
his gun. Dharam Pal inflicted injuries with gandassa on the forehead and
the left hand of Dhanpati. The complainant raised alarm. The
complainant further stated that Randhir, Chatru and Phool Singh, who had
been present in the Panchayat,, had witnessed the occurrence and rescued
them otherwise the assailants would have inflicted more injuries to them.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(4)
Thereafter, the assailants fled from the spot with their respective weapons.
The complainant
complainant and other injured were taken to hospital. The
complainant further stated therein that they had also inflicted injuries to
the assailants in their self-defence.
self Despite medical treatment having
been made available to Krishan, he could not survive aand succumbed to
his injuries on 22.11.2001.
3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police
during the course of which inquest report was prepared. The police
visited the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained soil and also one
empty cartridge, which were
w taken into possession vide recovery memos
(Ex.PE
PE & PF).
PF Rough sitee plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C
Cr.P.C..
The medical record pertaining to the injured and of the deceased was
collected. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the arrest of the
accused on 23.11.2001,
23.11.2001, they were interrogated. Accused – Dharampal
pursuant to his disclosure statement
statement Ex.PGG got recovered a gandassa
concealed by him in his residential house. Accused – Sumer Singh
pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PHH got recovered a gandassa
concealed by him in the store-room
store room of his house. Accused – Dilawar @
Dalel Singh pursuant
ant to his disclosure statement Ex.PJJ got recovered a
gandassa concealed by him underneath a bed in his residential house.
Accused – Surjeet in his disclosure statement Ex.PKK stated that the gun
used by him belongs to his uncle Sumer Singh, which he had concealed in
a bed lying in the room of his house and got the same recovered.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(5)
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against
Dharampal, Sumer Singh, Surjeet
Surj t Singh and Dilawar @ Dalel Singh in
the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magisrate, Safidon (Jind) on
15.02.2002, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order
dated 02.03.2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge
Judge, Jind framed
charges against the said 4 accused for offences punishable under Section
302/34 IPC and Section 323/34 IPC vide order dated 08.04.2002. Surjeet
Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 27 of the Arms
Act. Sumer Singh was also additionally charged for an offence under
Section 29 of the Arms Act. After some prosecution evidence had been
led, the prosecution moved an application un
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
seeking summoning of additional accused namely Om Parkash, Dharam
Singh and Hawa Singh, which was accepted by the trial Court vide order
dated 13.07.2002 and consequently, an amended charge
charge-sheet was framed
against all the 7 accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 15
PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:
hereinunder:-
PW-1 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness
witness-box stated in
tune with the allegations as recorded in the FIR, which had been
lodged pursuant to his statement Ex.P1. He specifically named all
the accused and individually attributed injuries to them. He
specifically stated that Surjeet
Surjeet had fired from his gun hitting
Krishan in his abdomen. He also stated categorically to the effect
that accused Om Parkash had inflicted a blow with gandassa toVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)(6)
Nand Ram on his head and gave another blow thrust
thrust-wise to Nand
Ram on his chin.
PW-2 Nand
nd Ram,
Ram, who is an injured witness, stated in tune with the
statement made by complainant – Jaswant Singh and narrated the
incident identically. He also stated that Surjeet Singh had fired
from his gun at Krishan hitting him in his abdomen. He
specifically stated that Om Parkash had inflicted a blow with
specifically
gandassa on his head and another on his chin, which was inflicted
by using the gandassa like a stick.
PW-3 Dr. Satish Parkash,
Parkash, Medical Officer, PHC, Farmana, District
Sonepat, stated that on 24.11.2001, he was posted at PHC
Safidon, as Medical Officer and that on the said day, he had
medico legally examined Subhash Chander
Chander. He described 2
injuries found on his person, which were opined to be simple in
nature and proved the MLR as Ex.PA. PW-3 further stated that
on the said day, he had also medico legally examined Om Parkash
son of Sher Singh who was found to be having 2 simple injuries
injuries..
He proved his MLR as Ex.PB. PW
PW-3 further stated that on the
said day, he had also medico legally examined Satbir Singh who
was having 3 simple injuries described in his MLR Ex.PC.
PW-4 HC Phul Kumar stated that on 22.11.2001, he was posted at
Police Station Safidon and had joined investigation with ASI
Virender
irender Singh when blood stained soil and an empty cartridge
were
ere lifted from the place of occurrence, which were taken into
possession vide recovery memos Ex.PE & PF.
PW-5 HC Ram Phal,
Phal, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit
Ex.P in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 21.11.2001, he
Ex.PH
was posted as Malkhana Moharrir, Police Station Safidon and that
on the said day,
day, ASI Chottu Ram had deposited 3 sealed parcelsVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)(7)
containing clothes of the injured and that on the next day i.e. on
22.11
22.11.2001, ASI Virender Singh deposited 2 parcels containing
blood stained soil and an empty cartridge and that on the next day
i.e. 23.11.2001, ASI Virender Singh deposited another 2 parcels
with him containing clothes of deceased Krishan and a piece of
plastic of cartridge and that on 23.11.2001, ASI Chottu Ram
deposited a parcel containing a double barrel gun. He further
deposed that on 29.11.2001, the said parcels were entrusted to
Constable Mohinder Singh for the purpose of delivering the same
in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban
Madhuban, which was accordingly
deposited and that as long as the parcels remained in his
possession, the same were not tampered with.
PW-6 Constable Naresh Kumar stated th
that on 22.11.2001, Moharrir
Head Constable of Police Station Safidon handed over him a copy
of DDR, which he delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other
superior Police Officers on the same day.
PW-7 Constable Mohinder Singh,
Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his
affidavit Ex.PK in evidence, wherein he deposed that on
29.11.2001, EHC Ramphal handed over sealed parcels to him,
which he deposited in the office of the Director, FSL, Madhuban
on the same day and that as long as tthe parcels remained in his
possession, the same were not tampered with.
PW-8 ASI Satbir stated that on 21.11.2001, he was posted as ASI in
Police Station Safidon and upon receipt of statement (Ex.P1) of
Jaswant Singh, he recorded formal FIR (Ex.PL).
PW-9 SI Hans Raj
Ra stated that during the period the investigation
remained entrusted with him, he had recorded statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of some witnesses. He further deposed that
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(8)
upon completion of investigation, report under Section 173
Cr.P.C was prepared on 28.01.2002, which bears his signatures.
Cr.P.C.
PW-10 Constable Dilbag Singh stated that he had prepared the scaled site
plan Ex.PN of the place of occurrence.
PW-11 Umed Singh, Ahlmad to District Magistrate, Jin
Jind proved the
sanction order Ex.PQ passed by the District Magistrate, Jind vide
which sanction was accorded for prosecuting Surjeet Singh under
various provisions of Arms Act.
PW-12 Dr. Raman Shukla, who had conducted post
post-mortem examination
on the dead body of Krishan, proved the ppost-mortem report as
Ex.PR, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body
of Krishan and opined that the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injury found on the dead body.
PW-13 Dr. A.K.Suri stated that on 21.11.2001, when he was posted at
CHC, Safidon,
Safidon, he had medico legally examined Kamla and found
3 injuries on her person,
pe which he described in the MLR Ex.PU
Ex.PU..
He also examined Angoori and found 5 injuries on her person,
which he described in the MLR Ex.
Ex.PUU. He stated that he had
also examined Dhanpati and found 3 injuries on her person, which
he described in the MLR Ex.PX.
Ex.P He stated that while examining
Nand Ram,
Ram he found 2 injuries on hhis person, which he described
in the MLR Ex.PY.
Ex.P He also stated that on the same day, he
examined Jaswant Singh and found 4 injuries on his person,
which he described in the MLR Ex.P
Ex.PZ.
PW-14 SI Chotu Ram,
Ram, who had partly conducted the investigation, stated
in respect of the same in detail and proved various documents
prepared during the course of investigation.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
(9)
PW-15 ASI Virender Singh,
Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, stated in
detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and
proved various documents prepared during the course of
investigation.
6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were
recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the entire prosecution
evidence led by the prosecution was put to them to enable to explain the
same, but the accused denied the case of prosecution. Accused – Surjeet
Singh pleaded that on 30.09.2001, the police arrested Mehar Singh, a
cousin of PW Subhash and Satish, brother of Krishan in respect of an
offence under Section 399, 402 IPC and that the complainant party
suspected that it was
was the accused, who had furnished said information to
the police. He further stated therein that the officials of HSEB also raided
the tubewells of Om Parkash, father of Krishan and the complainant party
suspected that even the said raid was pursuant to a complaint made by the
accused and that on the day of occurrence, Panchayat had been convened
to resolve the said issues and a compromise had in fact been effected, but
the same had
ha not been formally recorded. He stated that the members of
the Panchayat had collected and were present at his (Surjeet) house and
also at the house of Krishan, but Krishan, Nand Ram and Jaswant Singh
while arming
ing themselves with sticks came to his (Surjeet) house and
started abusing them and attacked them. Upon hearing alarm
alarm, other
members of the family of the complainant including the women folk
namely Angoori, Kamla, Dhanpati, Subhash, Satbir and Om Parkash had
also come there armed with weapons and they all assaulted them. He
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 10 )
further stated that upon hearing their alarm, Dilawar, Ramesh, Om
Parkash, Shamsher, Ram Parshad, Santosh, Karmu, Dharmpal and
Rajinder also come there to save them, but they were also attacked and
were inflicted injuries by the complainant party. He stated that in their
defence they (accused) also caused
aused injuries to Jaswant Singh, Nand Ram,
Angoori, Kamla and Dhanpati.
Dhanpati. He further stated that in the meantime his
uncle Sumer came from the fields while holding his licensed gun and
upon seeing them (accused) under attack, he fired towards the
complainant party to disburse them, but unfortunately the shot hit
complainant
Krishan.
7. Accused – Om Parkash in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313
Cr.P.C. pleaded that he had met with an accident in the year 1982 and has
been lame since then and cannot walk properly
properly and that his family has no
concern with the family of Hawa Singh. He further pleaded that on
21.11.2001, he had gone to Village Kharkara alongwith Joginder Singh to
attend a party hosted by Takht Singh and was not present at the spot.
8. The accused in their defence also examined as many as 9 DWs, the gist of
whose statements is stated to herein-under:
DW-1 HC Hari Om stated that on 30.09.2001, he was posted as Naib
Reader to the Superintendent of Police, Jind and that a complaint
Ex.DN was received in their office, which was sent to the
concerned Police Station i.e. to the SHO, P.S. Safidon.
DW-2 Balwan Singh,
Singh, JE, Thermal Plant, Panipat stated that on
21.11.2001, he was posted in the same department where accusedVIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)( 11 )
Dharam Singh was posted
post and that on the said day, Dharam Singh
was present on duty from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
DW-3 Jai Kishan, proprietor of M/s Jai Kishan Arms and Ammunition
Dealer, Safidon stated that on 31.08.2001, Dharam Singh had
deposited his licensed double barrel gun with his Arms house,
which is entered at Sr. No.161
No.161 of the register.
DW-4 Shamsher Singh,
Singh, Teacher, Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Village
Butani, stated that he is running a school since the last 5 years and
that Hawa Singh was a Teacher in another school namely Holy
Child School, Kharkhana and that on 21.11.2001, he had visited
the school of Hawa Singh in connection with some arrangements
for a picnic for children and had stayed the
there from 2.30 PM to
5.000 PM and that he was accompanied by Sumer Singh, Teacher.
He stated that Hawa Singh remained with them from 3.00 PM to
5.00 PM.
DW-5 Sumer Singh, Teacher stated that he was teaching in Maharishi
Vidya Mandir School, which was run by Shamsher Singh and that
on 21.11.2001, he along with Shamsher Singh had gone to school
of Hawa Singh and that at 2.30 PM Hawa Singh was not present
there, but was called later by a Peon.
DW-6 Takht Singh stated that he had earlier served Army and that on
21.11.2001, he had hosted a party for his friends which Om
21.11.2001,
Parkash had attended along with Joginder Singh and that Om
Parkash remained with him in his house from 1.00 PM to 7.00
PM.
DW-7 Ram Mehar Singh, Patwari,
Patwari, stated that on 10.07.2001, he had
received an application for demarcation of land
land, as had been
ordered by the Tehsildar and had given demarcation report
Ex.DR/1. He stated that 1 karam of land was found to be
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 12 )
encroached by Ikram son of Bakhtawar and the said land was
owned by Hawa Singh.
DW-8 Baldev Raj, Driver in Thermal Plant, Panipat
Panipat, stated that he was
working as Driver in the Thermal Plant, Panipat since last about
11 years and knew Dharam Singh. He stated that on 21.11.2001,
Dharam Singh came to the Thermal Plant at about 8.00 AM and
remained
ained there
the upto 5.00 PM although
lthough he went for lunch for about
1 hour.
DW-9 Joginder Singh stated that he know Takht Singh and that on
21.11.2001, Takht Singh had hosted a party at his residence and
that he along with Om Parkash went to the house of Takht Singh
on a bi-cycle.
bi . He stated that Om Parkash is disabled from his leg.
He stated that they reached the house of Takht Singh at about 12
noon and stayed there
the for about 7 hours and that later they
returned and he dropped Om Parkash at his residence at about 8.00
PM.
9. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, came to
the conclusion that it was a case of free fight where members of both the
parties had sustained injuries. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated
27.01.2005 held that while Surjeet Singh had committed offence under
Section 302 IPC, co-accused
co accused Sumer Singh, Dilawar @ Dalel Singh
Singh, Om
Parkash and Dharampal had committed offence under Section 323 IPC.
Co-accused
accused Hawa Singh and Dharam Singh were, however
however, acquitted of
all the charges framed against them. The trial Court vide order dated
29.01.2005 sentenced Surjeet Singh to under RI for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.5000/-,
Rs.5000/ , whereas the other 4 accused namely Sumer Singh, Om
Parkash, Dilawar @ Dalel and Dharampal
Dharampal were sentenced to undergo RI
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 13 )
for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. Aggrieved by the same,
appellants assailed their conviction by way of present appeals.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants Surjeet and Om
Parkash
kash submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present
case and that the fire arm in question was neither carried by appellant
Surjeet Singh nor was used by him and that the same infact was a licensed
weapon of co-accused
co accused Dilawar @ Dalel Sing
Singh. Learned counsel
submitted that as far as injuries attributed to appellant Om Parkash are
concerned, the same are in the nature of simple injuries which apparently
could not have been caused with a gandassa as has been alleged.
11. Learned counsel submitted that in any case even if the allegations
pertaining to causing of injuries are accepted to be correct, it is a case
where the complainant party had inflicted a large number of injuries to as
many as 10 persons on the side of the accused and the aaccused had no
choice but to defend themselves and in the said process the injuries came
to be caused.
12. It has further been submitted that there was no intention whatsoever to
cause death of anyone and it is a case where despite the fact that 2 persons
are alleged to be carrying guns, only 1 shot is alleged to have been fired
by one accused at the complainant party and all other shots, which were
fired by another co-accused
co accused Dharam Singh (acquitted) were fired in the
air. It has been submitted that sequence
sequence of events clearly suggest that it is
the complainant side, which was the aggressor and who have not even
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 14 )
chosen to clearly explain the injuries found on the person of accused and a
distorted version has been put forth. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that
the impugned judgment could not sustain and was liable to be set aside
and the accused deserved
deserve to be acquitted.
13. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case
where the version got recorded by the complainant (Jaswant Singh) in the
FIR is absolutely unambiguous wherein not only the accused have been
specifically named, but roles have also been attributed specifically and
that the said version stands fully corroborated from the medical evidence
evidence..
It has been submitted that PW-11 Jaswant Singh (complainant) as well as
another injured PW-2
PW 2 Nand Ram have stated consistently on all the
material aspects and as such, conviction of appellants is fully justified.
14. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
case.
15. Before proceeding to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants, it is apposite to first of all examine the medical evidence as
regards the injuries found on the dead body of deceased (Krishan) and
also on the person of injured.
16. Injuries to deceased (Krishan) – It is the specific case of the prosecution
that the deceased was inflicted a fire arm injury on his abdomen leading to
his death. The prosecution examined PW-12
PW 12 Dr. Raman Shukla, who had
conducted the post-mortem
post mortem examination on the dead body of Krishan.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 15 )
PW-12
12 described the injuries found on the dead body of Krishan, as
under:
“1. Fire arm entry wound
ound 4cm x 4 cms in size on right side 5 cms from
mid-line
line i.e. with reddish inverted margins with abraded coller on
medial side along with un-healthy
healthy granulation tissue. Distance of entry
wound from right heel was 104 cms. The wound is stitched at posteri
posterior
abdomenal wall. The paritonial cavity was having blood and its clots at
places. Proximal ileostomy have been done. Caecum and transverse
colan on were stitched at places. The lower – of right kidney was
ecchymosed with retropari — clots injurying the pelvic vessels. The
direction of wound was from anterior to posterior slightly down
down-ward
and out-wards.
2. Exit wound of size 1.5 x 1.5 cms present over back at the level of L
L-3
vertebra about 7 cms from mid-line
line and 100 cms. from right heel with
everted margins,
argins, in its track the wound had pierced through right eliac
bone and track tissue and surrounding tissue were echmosed along with
clotted blood at places.”
17. PW-12
12 opined that the cause of death was fire arm injury. A perusal of
the injuries as found to be existing on the dead body of Krishan clearly
suggest that the same are result of a fire arm injury inasmuch as while
injury No.1 is in the nature of entry wound, injury No.2 is in the nature of
a exit wound. The opinion of PW-12
PW 12 Dr. Raman Shukla is reproduced
herein under:
“A circular black wad was recovered from the track on its posterior side which
was sealed and packed. It had fractured the right illiac and pubic bones. The
margins of wound were everted. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Both
lungs were also pale and chambers of heart were empty. The cause of death of
deceased in my opinion was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante
ante-
mortem fire arm injury described, which were sufficient to cause death in
natural course of events.”
events.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 16 )
18. Although the aforesaid witness was cross
cross-examined on behalf of the
accused, but nothing substantial could be el
elicited during the course of
cross-examination
examination so as to doubt either his veracity and his opinion.
Under these circumstances, the factum of exis
existence of injuries on the dead
body of Krishan and the opinion of the Doctor as regards cause of death
being the firearm injury cannot be doubted on any count.
19. Injuries found on complainant side – It is the case of prosecution that the
accused apart from inflicting firearm injury to the deceased had inflicted
injuries to 5 more persons on the complainant side with the help of
gandassas (chopper with large blade usually used for cutting crops like
sugarcane
garcane etc.).
etc.). The names of the persons injured on the complainant side
other than the deceased are as under:
Sr. Name of the Injuries found by PWPW-13 Dr. A.K.Suri
No. injured
1. Kamla 3 injuries found on her person as recorded in MLR
Ex.PU
2. Angoori 5 injuries found on her person as recorded in MLR
Ex.PUU
3. Dhanpati 3 injuries found on her person as recorded in MLR
Ex.PX
4. Nand Ram 2 injuries found on hhis person as recorded in MLR
Ex.PY
5. Jaswant Singh 4 injuries found on hhis person as recorded in MLR
Ex.PZ
20. PW-13
13 Dr. A.K.Suri described the injuries found on the aforesaid five
injured,, as follows:
Kamla:
1. One lacerated wound 1 cm x 1.3 cm. obliquely placed. Marginals were
irregular, tenderness was present. It was placed on left forearm, in its
middle 1/3rd. It was caused by a blunt pointed weapon and was of within 6
hours of duration. Injury was kept under observation and xx-ray was
advised.
2. One lacerated wound .7 cm x 1 cm deep. Margins were irregular inverted.
It was placed on left fore-arm
fore arm 3.5 cm apart from injury No. 1. It was
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 17 )
caused by a blunt pointed weapon. It was of within 6 hours of duration. X X-
ray was advised and injury was kept unde
under observation.
3. lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm. Margins were irregular, tenderness was
present and was placed on left great toe at its tip. It was caused by a blunt
object and was of within 6 hours of duration. XX-ray was advised and injury
was kept under
unde observation.
Angoori:
1. One lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 0.8 cm up to bone deep, placed on left
parietal bone region of scalp. margins were irregular, tender
tender-ness was
present, there was a fresh bleeding, wound was obliquely placed. It was
caused by a blunt object and was of within 6 hours of duration. X X-ray was
advised and the injury was kept under observation.
2. One lenior abrasion, 2.5 cm in length, tender
tender-ness was present. It was
reddish placed on right side of nose, obliquely. Injury was caused by a
blunt object. It was of within 6 hours duration and simple in nature.
3. One lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm obliquely placed on left elbow joint
region. Margins were
were irregular. Tender
Tender-ness was present and margins were
inverted. It was caused by a blunt pointed object. It was of within 6 hours
of duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under observation.
4. One lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cms. placed on righ right parieto-occipital
region of scalp. Margins were irregular. Tender
Tender-ness was present. It was
obliquely placed. Injury was caused by blunt object and was of within 6
hours of duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under
observation.
5. One contusion
contusion 4 cm x 1 cm. Oval placed on right side of chest. It was
reddish in colour and tender-ness
tender ness was present. It was caused by a blunt
object and was within 6 hours of duration.
Dhanpati:
1. One lacerated wound 5 cm x 1. cm. x bone deep, obliquely placed on right
fronto parirtal region of scalp. Margins were irregular. There was a fresh
bleeding. Tenderness was present. Injury was caused by a blunt object. It
was within six hours of duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury wa was
kept under observation.
2. One diffuse swelling 6 cm x 4 cms. Tenderness was present. Oval placed
on left hand. Injury was caused by blunt weapon. It was within 6 hours of
duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under observation.
3. One contusion
contusion 4 cm x 3 cms. Oval placed on occipital region of scalp,
tenderness was present. Injury was caused by blunt object. It was of within
6 hours of duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under
observation
observation.
Nand Ram:
1. One lacerated wound 5 cm x 0.8 cms. into bone deep, oblique placed on
mid parietal wound region of scalp. Margins were irregular. Tenderness
was present. Injury was caused by a blunt object. It was within 6 hours of
duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under obse
observation.
2. One contusion 0.8 cms x 0.2 cms horizontally placed on left side of chin.
Margins were irregular. Tenderness was present. Injury was caused by a
blunt object and duration was within 6 hours and simple in nature.
Jaswant Singh:
1. One lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm into bone deep, horizontally placed on
right parietal bone region. Margins were irregular. It was tender and there
was fresh bleeding. The injury was caused by a blunt object and it was
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)( 18 )
within 6 hours of duration. X-ray
X ray wa
was advised and the injury was kept
under observation.
2. One abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm place horizontally. Placed on left arm in its
upper 1/3rd reddish in colour. Tenderness was present. Injury was caused
by a blunt object. It was within 6 hours of duration aand simple in nature.
3. One diffuse swelling 6 cm x 4 cms obliquely placed on tempero
mandibular joint region of the fact, swelling was present. Tenderness was
present. The injuries were caused by a blunt object and it was within 6
hours of duration. X-ray
X was advised and the injury was kept under
observation.
4. One diffuse swelling 6 cm x 4 cms. Oval placed on right hand. Tenderness
was present. It was caused by a blunt object and was within 6 hours of
duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept uunder observation.
21. PW-13
13 specifically stated that after x-ray
x ray examination in respect ofinjuries of all the 5 injured, he furnished his opinion Ex.PM/1 to the effect
that none of the injuries was found to be grievous and were declared as
simple injuries. PW-13 Dr. A.K.Suri was cross
cross-examined on behalf of theaccused as regards the aforesaid injuries, but the factum of existence of
such injuries could not be shattered. It, thus, stands established that apart
from the deceased
deceased 5 more persons on the side of complainant hadsustained simple injuries mostly in the nature of lacerations and
contusions.
22. It may here be mentioned that prosecution also examined PW
PW-3 Dr. SatishParkash, who stated that on 24.11.2001, he had ex
examined SubhashChander son of Maha Singh, Om Parkash son of Sher Singh and Satbir
Singh son of Shamsher Singh and had found injuries on their person,
which he described in their MLRs as Exs.PA, PB & PC respectively.
However, neither any of the aforesaid 3 persons has been examined by the
prosecution nor PW-1
PW 1 Jaswant Singh (complainant) nor PW
PW-2 Nand Ram
(injured) has named the said persons to be also accompanying them or
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 19 )
having sustained any injury. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid
evidence is rendered
ren irrelevant.
23. Injuries found on the person of accused side – The accused have tried to
built up a case of self-defence.
self defence. Learned senior counsel during the course
of arguments vehemently argued that as many as 10 persons from the side
of accused have been injured and has referred to the cross
cross-examination of
PW-13
13 Dr. A.K.Suri during the course of which he stated having
examined 10 more persons
p other than 5 victims on the complainant side.
The names of said 10 persons
p are stated herein under:
Sr. Name of the Injuries found by PW
PW-13 Dr. A.K.Suri
No. injured
1. Parshada son of 6 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DB
Man Singh
2. Dharam Chand son 1 injury found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DC
of Dalel Singh
3. Dalel Singh son of 2 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DD
Man Singh
(ACCUSED)
4. Shamsher son of 2 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DE
Ram Parshad
5. Rajender son of 3 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DF
Dharampal
6. Ramesh son of 3 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DG
Ram Parshad
7. Surjeet son of 1 injury found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DH
Dharam Singh
(ACCUSED)
8. Dharampal son of 4 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DJ
Lalji Ram
(ACCUSED)
9. Satbir son of Jamna 2 injuries found on hhis person as per MLR Ex.DK
Ram
10. Santosh wife of 1 injury found on hher person as per MLR Ex.DL
Om Parkash
24. It needs to be noticed that out of the aforesaid 10 injured only 3 have been
arrayed as accused namely Dilawar @ Dalel Singh
Singh, Surjeet, and
Dharampal and the remaining 7 injured are neither named in the FIR nor
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 20 )
have been named by the eye witnesses namely PW
PW-1 Jaswant Singh and
PW-22 Nand Ram.
Ram Though the names of some of the injured find
mentioned
ed in the statement
ement of accused Surjeet recorded in terms of
Section 313 Cr.P.C., but the accused neither chose to examine any of the
said 7 injured as witness nor any of the defence witnesses ha
has referred to
them.
25. The injuries found on the person of three accused namely Dilawar @
Dalel Singh, Surjeet, and Dharampal have been described by PW-13 Dr.
A.K.Suri during the course of cross-examination
cross examination wherein he stated that he
medico legally examined them on 21.11.2001 and proved their MLRs as
Exs.DD,
DD, DH & DJ respectively. The injuries have been described as
under:
Dilawar @ Dalel Singh:
Singh
1. One lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.3 cm. oval placed on mid parietal wound
region of scalp, margins were irregular. Tenderness was present.
2. One contusion 5cm x 1cm placed on left shoulder joint region. It was
reddish in colour. Tenderness was present
Surjeet:
1. One wound of the size of 2.5 cm x 3.1 cm in depth obliquely. Margins
were irregular and tenderness was present and it was placed on left
forearm in its lower 1/3rd. The injury was caused by blunt pointed weapon
and was also within 6 hours of duration. X
X-ray was advised.
Dharampal:
1. One lacerated wound 4.5 cms x 1 cm. obliquely placed on left parietal
bone region of scalp. Margins were irregular. Tenderness was present. It
was caused by a blunt object and it was within 6 hours of duration. X
X-ray
was advised and the injury was kept under observation.
2. One incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm. horizontally placed on occipital region
of scalp. Margins were regular. It was caused by a sharp object. It was
within 6 hours duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and the injury was kept under
observation.
3. One diffuse swelling 6 cm x cms placed on left elbow joint region. Oval
in shape. Tenderness was present, it was caused by a blunt weapon and so
within 6 hours of duration, X-ray
X ray was advised and the injuries was kept
under observation.
4. One contusion 5 cm x 4 cms placed on left scapular region. Tenderness
was present. Injury was caused
caused by a blunt object and it was of within 6
hour duration. X-ray
X ray was advised and injury was kept under observation
observation.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 21 )
26. Since the accused did not lead any evidence to show that any of the injury
was grievous or serious,
serious the said injuries are taken to be simple injuries.
27. Having affirmed that several persons from the complainant side and also
from the side of accused had
ha been injured, the material question before
this Court is as to whether the injuries in question were caused by the
accused in self-defence
self defence or as to whether it is the accused themselves who
were the aggressors or as to whether it is a case of some kind of free fight
and as to whether the accused shared
share any common intention or any
common object for inflicting
inflicting these injuries.
28. As per the version recorded in FIR, on the day of occurrence, a Panchayat
had been convened to resolve the issue between both the sides as regards
‘dol’ in the fields and although the matter has been compromised, but it
was yet to be taken down in writing and at that stage the accused said that
they do not accept the compromise and left the Panchayat and went
towards their houses and came back shortly armed with weapons and
inflicted injuries. PW-11 Jaswant Singh (complainant) and PW
PW-2 Nand
Ram (injured) have both stated consistently as regards the aforesaid
version recorded in the FIR regarding the manner in which occurrence
had taken place.
29. The accused Surjeet,
Surjeet in hiss statement recorded in terms of Section 313
Cr.P.C., has not disputed the aforesaid factum of convening of Panchayat..
However, he has assigned a different reason for convening the meeting of
Panchayat while stating that it had been convened to dispel
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 22 )
misconceptions which the complainant party nursed against the accused
as the complainant party carried a wrong impression that the accused
party had made complaint against them to the police leading to
registration of an earlier FIR and that the accused had also lodged
complaint against them with the officials of HSEB regarding pilferage of
electricity.. Surjeet Singh has taken a stand that although the said
misconceptions were cleared and resolved in the Panchayat by the
accused side, but the complainant party did not accept the compromise
and Krishan (deceased), Nand Ram and Jaswant Singh while armed with
sticks came to the house of Surjeet and started abusing him and attacked
them and that upon hearing alarm other
other members of the complainant’s
family i.e. Angoori, Kamla, Dhanpati, Subhash, Satbir and Om Parkash
also came there and assaulted them. Surjeet further stated therein that
Dilawar, Ramesh, Om Parkash, Shamsher, Ram Parshad, Santosh, Karmu,
Dharampal and Rajinder
Rajinder had also come there to save them, but they were
also attacked by the complainant side and were inflicted injuries and that
the accused also inflicted injuries to Jaswant Singh, Nand Ram, Angoori,
Kamla and Dhanpati in their self-defence.
30. The aforesaid stand would show that the factum of convening of a
Panchayat and the quarrel or fight which ensued thereafter, is not
disputed by Surjeet in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The complainant side as per the said statement was arme
armed with sticks
only. The admitted sequence of events makes it evident that the parties
had gathered and had
ha participated in the Panchayat to resolve their
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 23 )
disputes, but shortly thereafter the occurrence took place. The stand taken
by Surjeet Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
as regards complainant side nursing some suspicion on account of the
accused having lodged complaint with the police and also with HSEB is
not substantiated from any convincing evidence. On the other hand, there
is nothing to discredit PW-1 Jaswant Singh and PW
PW-2 Nand Ram, who
have stated consistently regarding the reason for convening of Panchayat
and that the accused had walked out of the Panchayat while stating that
they do not accept the compromise and had proceeded to their house and
returned immediately thereafter and caused injuries.
31. The version put forth by Surjeet Singh in his statement under section 313
Cr.PC.. that the complainant side had opened attack by entering into house
of Surjeet and that the injuries found on person of complainant side had
been caused in self-defence
self defence does not seem to be true under the given
circumstances. While there is evidence with regard to the injuries found
on the person of 3 accused namely Dalel Singh, Surjeet and Dharampal,
the admissibility of medical evidence with regard to other 7 persons in
respect of which PW-13
PW has stated during his cross
cross-examination may be
debatable inasmuch
inasmuch as neither any of the said 7 injured person ha
has stepped
into the witness-box
witness box nor any of the DW has stated about them. In any
case, even if said evidence is taken into account, the very fact that
complainant side was armed with sticks only whereas the accused side
was carrying guns and gandasas and would have out
out-numbered
complainant, makes the plea of self-defence
self defence sound hollow.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 24 )
32. This Court, however, finds that although a large number of accused are
statedd to be armed with gandassas,, but none of the injuries found on the
person of 5 injured can be said to have been inflicted by gandassa from
sharp side.. The PWs have also described several of the injuries to have
been caused by using gandassa like a stick. A perusal of all the 19
injuries sustained by
by 5 injured from complainant side shows that all are in
the nature of contusions or lacerations and have specifically been opined
to have been caused by blunt object.
33. The manner in which occurrence had taken place shortly after the
Panchayat proceedings shows that it is not a case where the accused had
formed any common object to inflict injuries so as to cause death.
34. The manner of occurrence and the number of injured on both sides makes
it apparently a case of ‘free fight’ or spontaneous confrontation rather than
pre-meditated
meditated crime.
crime The phrase ‘free
free fight’ has been defined by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 1993(Supplement 3 ) SCC 141 Dwarka Prasad vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh,
Pradesh as under:
“10. A free fight is that when both sides mean to fight a pitched battle. The question
of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and
depends on the tactics adopted by the rival party. In such cases of mutual
fights, both sides can be convicted
convicted for their individual acts. This position has
been settled by this Court in the cases of Gajanand v. State of U.P., AIR 1954
Supreme Court 695 : 1954 Cri LJ 1746, Kanbi Nanji Virji v. State of Gujarat,
(1970) 3 SCC 103 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 219, Puran v. State of Rajasthan,
(1976) 1 SCC 28 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 912, Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State
of Maharashtra, (1978) 1 SCC 474 : AIR 1978 Supreme Court 414. As such
once it is established by the prosecution that the occurrence in question is
result
lt of a free fight then normally no right of private defence is available to
either party and they will be guilty of their respective acts.”
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 25 )
35. To a similar effect is judgment rendered in Amrik Singh vs. State of
Punjab, 1993 Cr.LJ 2857,
2857, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
under:
“The
The High Court, further held that this is a case of free fight. In coming to such
a conclusion, the High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the
accused as well as the deceased and PWs appeared at the plac
place of occurrence
armed with weapons and the quarrel took place immediately. This is a question
of fact which does not warrant any interference. The question as to who
commenced it first may not be such relevant and it has also been held in a
number of cases that the participants should be liable for their individual acts.
In this view of the matter, we have to examine the plea of each of the accused.
We may, however, mention that in a case of free fight, the question of unlawful
assembly is not ruled out. But
But in arriving at the common object of the unlawful
assembly in a free fight it cannot be held with certainty that if one of the
individual inflicts a serious injury then it would be a common object of all
members of the unlawful assembly.”
36. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996(2)RCR(Criminal) 616, State of Haryana
vs. Chandvir,
Chandvir in another case of death during a free fight between two
families held as under:
“A reading of the evidence clearly goes to show that after the first incident of
quarrel between the
the ladies had taken place, when the deceased
deceased-Rajpal was
passing through the road and had come near the house of the accused, there
appears to have arisen a quarrel between the accused party and the prosecution
party. Both the incidents had taken place duri
during the course of the same
transaction. The question then is: whether it is possible to believe the evidence
of the injured witnesses implicitly to base the conviction of the respondents? It
would appear from the evidence adduced that there is no common obj
object or
intention to kill the deceased. It would appear that it is a case of free fight
between the accused party and the prosecution party on account of the quarrels
between the two families. There is evidence that some of the accused suffered
injuries in the same transaction and the prosecution has not explained injuries
on them. In those circumstances, the liability of each of the accused has to be
considered independently.”
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 26 )
37. In the present case, there
there is nothing on record to show that the accused
other than Surjeet had any knowledge or intention that Surjeet was going
to cause death. Surjeet was not carrying any gun when the Panchayat
proceedings were going on.
on Under these circumstances in view of law
settled by Hon’ble Apex Court as referred
referred to above
above, the accused can only
be held liable for their individual act and cannot be held vicariously liable..
38. Consequently, Om Parkash can be held liable only in respect of injuries
attributed to him. He was attributed injuries found on the pperson of
injured Nand Ram, which are in the nature of simple injuries. PW
PW-1
Jaswant Singh and PW-2
PW Nand Ram having stated consistently in tune
regarding Om Parkash having inflicted injuries to him (Nand Ram) and
the said
id fact being fully established from the medical evidence as well,
this Court does not have any hesitation in affirming the findings of the
trial Court as regards guilt of appellant – Om Parkash for having
committed offence under Section 323 IPC.
39. However, having regard to the fact that the occurrence had taken place in
the year 2001 i.e. more than two decades back, and appellant – Om
Parkash, who is presently aged about 70 years and is not stated to be a
previous convict, there is some room for reduction in sentence.
Consequently, while dismissing his appeal, sentence of imprisonment as
imposed by the trial Court modified and is reduced from RI from six
months to the one already undergone.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-222-DB-2005 (O&M) &
CRA-S-394-SB-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 27 )
40. As far as appellant Surjeet Singh is concerned, PW
PW-1 Jaswant Singh
(complainant) and PW-2 Nandd Ram (injured) have both consistent
consistently
stated to the effect that Surjeet Singh had fired from his double barrel gun
at Krishan hitting him in his abdomen. The said fact is duly borne out
from the medical evidence in the shape of post
post-mortem report, wherein 2
injuries found on the dead body of Krishan were shown to be an ‘entry
wound’ and an ‘exit wound’ and the Doctor has clearly opined that the
said injuries were caused
aused by the firearm and the cause of death was
firearm injuries.
41. There being nothing to contradict the testimonies of PW
PW-1 Jaswant Singh
and PW-22 Nand Ram or to doubt the medical opinion, the findings of
guilt of Surjeet Singh as recorded by the tri
trial Court for having committed
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC do not suffer from any
infirmity and the same are hereby affirmed. Finding no merit in the
instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
42. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quar
quarters concerned for necessary
compliance.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
GILL)
JUDGE
07.02.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
Vimal
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link