CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

1.

Davinder Singh

State of Punjab

2.

Gurdeep Singh

State of Punjab

CORAM:

Present:

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J

1. This judgment shall dispose of above

criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated

by learned

Faridkot, which

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 1 )

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

At Chandigarh

CR

Davinder Singh

Versus

Punjab

CR

Gurdeep Singh

Versus

Punjab

Date of Decision

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate,

for the appellant in CRA-D-399

for the respondents in CRR-2128

Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate as Amicus Curiae

Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner in CRR-2128

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned

criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated

Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court,

which is being assailed. While in CRA

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

At Chandigarh

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M)

… Appellant

... Respondent

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

… Petitioner

... Respondent

Date of Decision:- 03.04.2025

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Narinder Singh, Advocate,

399-DB-2004 and

2128-2004.

Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and

Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate,

2128-2004.

mentioned appeal as well as

criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated 06.04.2004 passed

Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court,

While in CRA-399-DB-2004, appellant

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

– Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302,

458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act

Singh in CRR

Rahul Bhupinder Singh

imposed upon Davinder Singh.

2. The matter arises out of FIR No.

302, 307, 458, 120

(Ex.PK/1) lodged

The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR

reads as under:

“I am resident of village

brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev

Singh has expired. I alongwith my

whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short

distance from us.

Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard

was glowing

12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul

Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a

exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught

of Sukhdev Singh

Singh son of Gurpal

my father N

his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot.

order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah.

killed

alongwith their gun. On hearing

Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards

However, Davinder Singh fired

the pe

Singh on his back

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 2 )

Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302,

458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act

Singh in CRR-2128-2004 challenges the acquittal of

Rahul Bhupinder Singh and also seeks enhancement of sentence as

imposed upon Davinder Singh.

The matter arises out of FIR No.175 dated 15.07.2001, under Sect

302, 307, 458, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 of the Arms Act

lodged on the basis of statement (Ex.P

The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR

reads as under:

I am resident of village Rupana and I am into cultivation. We are 3

brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev

Singh has expired. I alongwith my brother’s

whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short

istance from us. On 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, our neighbour

Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard

glowing. Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, who was carrying a

12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul

Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a

exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught

of Sukhdev Singh for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur

Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun at

my father Naranjan Singh, who was sitting on a cot and the shot hit on

his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot.

order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah.

killed-killed, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house

alongwith their gun. On hearing gun shots being fired

Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards

However, Davinder Singh fired at them as we

ellets hit Baldev Singh on the back of his

Singh on his back, right buttock, back of both thighs as well as on his

Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302,

458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner – Gurdeep

2004 challenges the acquittal of Gurpal Singh and

and also seeks enhancement of sentence as

175 dated 15.07.2001, under Sections

B, 34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 of the Arms Act

statement (Ex.PK) of Gurdeep Singh.

The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR

Rupana and I am into cultivation. We are 3

brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev

brother’s family reside with parents,

whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short

at about 9.30 PM, our neighbour

Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard

. Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, who was carrying a

12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul Bhupinder

Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a lalkara

exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught to Davinder Singh son

for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur. Davinder

Singh fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun at

ranjan Singh, who was sitting on a cot and the shot hit on

his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot. In

order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah. When we raised alarm

, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house

gun shots being fired, our neighbourer

Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards our house.

them as well in order to kill them and

on the back of his right thigh and hit Sohan

back of both thighs as well as on his

Gurdeep Singh.

house.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda

ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my

father N

Muktsar

injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh we

treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh

that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my

nephew Davinder Singh.

bore double barrel gun to

us with an intention

Nishan Singh

Sd/- Gurdeep Singh.

3. Pursuant to

Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh

Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and

conducted inquest proceedings. The post

dead body of Niranjan Singh

body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh

visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted

and prepared into parcel. Two empty

possession from inside the

were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately

prepared into parcels.

18.07.2001

(Ex.PX) and pursuant there

An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh)

was also produced, which was taken into possession separate

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 3 )

lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda

ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my

father Naranjan Singh, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh to Civil Hospital,

Muktsar for treatment where my father N

injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh we

treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh

that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my

nephew Davinder Singh. Gurpal Singh had handed over his licensed 12

bore double barrel gun to his son Davinder Singh and sent them to attack

with an intention to kill us. I was proce

Nishan Singh to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken.

Gurdeep Singh.”

Pursuant to recording of the aforesaid statement of Gurdeep Singh by SI

Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh

Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and

conducted inquest proceedings. The post

dead body of Niranjan Singh was got conducted and thereafter the dead

body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh

visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted

and prepared into parcel. Two empty cartridges were also taken into

possession from inside the deori (gate) and another two empty cartridges

were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately

prepared into parcels. Accused Davinder Singh was arrested on

18.07.2001 and upon interrogation, he made a disclosure statement

(Ex.PX) and pursuant thereto got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun.

An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh)

was also produced, which was taken into possession separate

lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda

ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my

ranjan Singh, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh to Civil Hospital,

for treatment where my father Naranjan Singh succumbed to his

injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh were, however, admitted for

treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh and others suspected

that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my

Gurpal Singh had handed over his licensed 12

his son Davinder Singh and sent them to attack

I was proceeding alongwith Sarpanch

to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken.

recording of the aforesaid statement of Gurdeep Singh by SI

Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh

Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and

conducted inquest proceedings. The post-mortem examination on the

was got conducted and thereafter the dead

body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh

visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted

cartridges were also taken into

(gate) and another two empty cartridges

were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately

Accused Davinder Singh was arrested on

upon interrogation, he made a disclosure statement

got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun.

An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh)

was also produced, which was taken into possession separately.

to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken.

got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

4. Upon conclusion of investigation,

Davinder Singh son of Gurpal

and Gurpal Singh

Muktsar on

vide order dated

Muktsar framed charges against

458/302/307 IPC and

Rahul Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh

under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and

Section 30

guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as

PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein

PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal,

the dead body of

mortem report as Ex.P

on the dead body of

death was due to

to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which

death in an ordinary course of nature. He

to the x

respect of

PW-2 Dr. Jagrity

medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on

14.07.2001

wherein he described

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 4 )

conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against

Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, Rahul Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda

and Gurpal Singh in the Court of Sub D

on 28.08.2001, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions

vide order dated 01.09.2001. Learned

framed charges against Davinder Singh under Sections

458/302/307 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act

Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh

under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and

30 of the Arms Act on 03.10.2001

guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as

The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein

Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted post

the dead body of Naranjan Singh on

mortem report as Ex.PA, wherein he described the injuries found

on the dead body of Naranjan Singh

death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of shock due

to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which

death in an ordinary course of nature. He

to the x-ray examination conducted by him

respect of injuries sustained by Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh

Dr. Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsa

medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on

14.07.2001, proved their MLRs as Ex.P

wherein he described the injuries found on the

challan was presented against accused

ingh, Rahul Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda

Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions

. Learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Davinder Singh under Sections

Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Whereas

Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh were charged for offences

under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and under

03.10.2001 to which they pleaded not

The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 15

The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein under:-

had conducted post-mortem examination on

Naranjan Singh on 15.07.2001, proved the post-

, wherein he described the injuries found

Naranjan Singh and opined that the cause of

cardio respiratory arrest as a result of shock due

to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which was sufficient to cause

death in an ordinary course of nature. He also stated with regard

ray examination conducted by him on 17.07.2001 in

Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh.

, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had

medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on

, proved their MLRs as Ex.PF and Ex.PG respectively,

injuries found on their person.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

PW-3 Baldev Singh

going towards market (

that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any

occurrence.

was permitted to be cro

PW-4 Gurdeep Singh

got recorded by him in the FIR

PW-5 Gurmit Singh

9.30 PM

He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh

Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard

Singh

Singh empty handed came there.

Singh

for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur

Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired

double barrel gun

and chest

gun and fired another shot

Singh (complainant)

the

out of the house alongwith their gun.

fired

complainant’s house

Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh

by the complainant.

PW-6 Surjit Singh Gill

site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 5 )

Baldev Singh stated that about 4/5 months back, when he was

going towards market (bazar) at about 9.00 PM

that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any

occurrence. The said witness was, however, declared hostile and

was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

Gurdeep Singh (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations

got recorded by him in the FIR.

Gurmit Singh (eye-witness) stated that

9.30 PM, he went to the house of Gurdeep

He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh

Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard

Singh who was carrying a double barrel gun and Rahul Bhupinder

Singh empty handed came there. He stated

Singh raised a lalkara exhorting his companion t

for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur

Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired

double barrel gun hitting Naranjan Singh

and chest. He stated that accused

gun and fired another shot at him (Gurmit Singh) and Gurdeep

Singh (complainant), but in order to save

the verandah. Thereafter Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went

out of the house alongwith their gun.

fired, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards

complainant’s house. PW-2 described the injuries

Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh in the same manner as described

by the complainant.

Surjit Singh Gill, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled

site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P

about 4/5 months back, when he was

at about 9.00 PM, he came to know

that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any

The said witness was, however, declared hostile and

examined by the Public Prosecutor.

(complainant) stated in tune with the allegations

stated that on 15.07.2001 at about

went to the house of Gurdeep Singh (complainant).

He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh, his father

Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard, Davinder

a double barrel gun and Rahul Bhupinder

He stated that Rahul Bhupinder

exhorting his companion to teach a lesson

for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur and thereafter accused

Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired a shot from his 12 bore

Naranjan Singh on his face, forehead

He stated that accused Davinder Singh reloaded his

at him (Gurmit Singh) and Gurdeep

order to save themselves, they hid in

Singh and his son Bhinda went

out of the house alongwith their gun. On hearing gun shots being

, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards

2 described the injuries sustained by

in the same manner as described

, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled

site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PL).

Singh (complainant).

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

PW-7 Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that

of occurrence

Ex.P

PW-8 Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh

(complainant)

Navdeep Kaur

used to make telephone call

mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh,

came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused

Davinder Singh) saw

daughter Navdeep Kaur,

eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter.

PW-9 Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on

Santokh Singh visited the place of occ

lifting

shells of 12 bore from the

outside the gate

PW-10 Ajaib Singh

Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that

went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar

Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh

before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and

Davinder

presence

pursuant to disclosure statements

interrogation

PW-11 HC Major Singh,

Ex.P

was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar

said day, HC Surinder Singh

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 6 )

Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that

of occurrence on 15.07.2001 and had taken photographs Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4 and proved negatives thereof as Ex.P

Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh

(complainant) stated that about 1 year ago, he had love affair with

Navdeep Kaur, daughter of accused Davinder Singh

used to make telephone call to his house.

mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh,

came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused

Davinder Singh) saw him (PW-

daughter Navdeep Kaur, then whole of their family would be

eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter.

Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on

Santokh Singh visited the place of occ

lifting blood stained soil, he had taken into possession

shells of 12 bore from the deori (gate) and two other empties from

outside the gate.

Ajaib Singh, brother of Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and son of

Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that

went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar

Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh

before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and

Davinder Singh were interrogated by SI Santokh Singh in his

presence. He further deposed regarding the recoveries effected

pursuant to disclosure statements

interrogation.

HC Major Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavi

Ex.PU in evidence, wherein he deposed that on

was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar

said day, HC Surinder Singh had handed

Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that he had visited the place

and had taken photographs Ex.P1 to

and proved negatives thereof as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8.

Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, nephew of Gurdeep Singh

about 1 year ago, he had love affair with

, daughter of accused Davinder Singh and that she

his house. He stated that when his

mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh, he

came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused

-8 Davinder Singh) with his

whole of their family would be

eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter.

Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on 15.07.2001, SI

Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence and that apart from

he had taken into possession two empty

(gate) and two other empties from

, brother of Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and son of

Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that on 18.07.2001, when he

went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar, Ajit Singh, owner of

Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh

before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and

Singh were interrogated by SI Santokh Singh in his

regarding the recoveries effected

pursuant to disclosure statements made by accused during

who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit

in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 22.07.2001, he

was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar and that on the

had handed him over the case

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

property including

cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun.

on

Gurjant

Punjab, Chandigarh

raised by the

two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil

him

objections

Constable Gurjant Singh

Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as

parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered

with

PW-12 Constable Gurjant S

into evidence his affidavit Ex.P

26.07.2001

property including

empty cartridges,

the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the

next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12

bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office,

but

in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple

soil

thereafter on

obje

he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the

same day and that as long as

possession, the same were not tampered with.

PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh

information in the police station,

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 7 )

property including parcels containing blood stained soil, empty

cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun.

on 26.07.2001, the case property

Gurjant Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL,

Punjab, Chandigarh, but due to certain objections

raised by the said office, he (Constable Gurjant Singh)

wo parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil

him. He stated that thereafter on 06.08.2001

objections, he had again handed over the

Constable Gurjant Singh, which he deposited in the office of FSL,

Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as

parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered

with.

Constable Gurjant Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered

into evidence his affidavit Ex.PV, wherein he deposed that on

26.07.2001, MHC Major Singh had handed over

property including parcels containing

empty cartridges, blood stained soil and simple soil for depositing

the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the

next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12

bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office,

but due to certain objections having been

in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple

soil, he returned the same with MHC

thereafter on 06.08.2001, MHC Major Singh

objections had again handed over him the

he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the

same day and that as long as

possession, the same were not tampered with.

HC Balwinder Singh stated that on

information in the police station,

parcels containing blood stained soil, empty

cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun. He further stated that

, the case property was sent through Constable

Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL,

due to certain objections having been

(Constable Gurjant Singh) returned

wo parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil with

06.08.2001, after removing the

handed over the said two parcels to

, which he deposited in the office of FSL,

Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the

parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered

, who is a formal witness, has tendered

, wherein he deposed that on

had handed over to him the case

parcels containing 12 bore double barrel gun,

blood stained soil and simple soil for depositing

the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the

next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12

bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office,

having been raised by the said office

in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple

with MHC Major Singh. He stated that

Major Singh after removing the

handed over him the said two parcels, which

he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the

same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his

possession, the same were not tampered with.

stated that on 15.07.2001, upon receipt of

information in the police station, he was associated the police

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

party headed by SI Santokh Singh

hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch

Nishan Singh near Kotkapura

recorded

FIR Ex.P

of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and

investigation conducted by

various memos prepared during course of the same.

with regard to the

statement

that he identif

PW-14 HC Surinder Singh

affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on

15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar

and that

the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil,

earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore

18.07.2001

containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer

from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the

case property was handed over to Major Singh

PW-15 Gurmit

Rupana,

supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM

6. The prosecution

Ex.PCC & Ex.PDD

7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were

recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 8 )

party headed by SI Santokh Singh

hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch

Nishan Singh near Kotkapura chowk and SI Santokh Singh

recorded Gurdeep’s Singh statement Ex.P

FIR Ex.PK/1 came to be lodged. He stated

of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and

investigation conducted by SI Santoskh Singh

various memos prepared during course of the same.

with regard to the recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure

statement made by the accused Davinder Singh.

that he identified the signatures of SI Santokh Singh (since died).

HC Surinder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his

affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on

15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar

and that on the said day, SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him

the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil,

earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore

18.07.2001, SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him a parcel

containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer

from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the

case property was handed over to Major Singh

Gurmit Singh, Sub Station Operator, 66 KV Grid, Sub Station,

Rupana, produced the summoned record pertaining to

supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM

The prosecution after tendering into evidence report

Ex.PCC & Ex.PDD) closed its evidence.

Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were

recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein

prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from

party headed by SI Santokh Singh and they started for the

hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch

chowk and SI Santokh Singh got

statement Ex.PK, on the basis of which

came to be lodged. He stated about the preparation

of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and as regards the entire

Santoskh Singh and also proved

various memos prepared during course of the same. He stated

recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure

Davinder Singh. He also stated

the signatures of SI Santokh Singh (since died).

, who is a formal witness, tendered his

affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on

15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar

SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him

the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil, simple

earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore. He stated that on

Singh had deposited with him a parcel

containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer

from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the

case property was handed over to Major Singh.

Singh, Sub Station Operator, 66 KV Grid, Sub Station,

produced the summoned record pertaining to electric

supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM.

into evidence reports of FSL (Ex.PBB,

Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were

wherein they denied the case of

prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from the

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

statement of accused

Cr.P.C. is as under:

“I am innocent. I am MA, B.Ed.

of our village

examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to

the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW

Mangal Singh, who owned 17

7 years prior to the alleged oc

lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were

demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he

inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh

was not on speaking t

with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the

place of occurrence. On

supply breakdown

arrival of

started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun

while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and

Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in t

Singh

His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone

and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit

sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch

of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr.

Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said

Nishan Singh in the elections. On that accou

after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated

in the case. I and my father were brought

licensed gun of my father on

the police. My brot

authorities.

8. Accused – Gurpal Singh

Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under:

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 9 )

statement of accused Davinder Singh recorded in terms of Section 313

Cr.P.C. is as under:

I am innocent. I am MA, B.Ed. and was posted

of our village. My daughter Navdeep Kaur was

examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to

the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW

Mangal Singh, who owned 17-18 killas of land and he died issueless. 6

7 years prior to the alleged occurrence, said Mangal Singh

lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were

demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he

inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh

was not on speaking terms with his brothers and

with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the

place of occurrence. On 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, there was electric

supply breakdown in the village. There was hue and cry ab

arrival of Kala Kaccha thieves and the people due to fear and panic

started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun

while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and

Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in t

Singh sustained fire arm injuries and carried to his courtyard and he died.

His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone

and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit

sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch

of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr.

Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said

Nishan Singh in the elections. On that accou

after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated

in the case. I and my father were brought

licensed gun of my father on 15.07.2001 and were illegally detained by

the police. My brother Shivraj Singh had given telegrams to higher

authorities.”

Gurpal Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313

Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under:

recorded in terms of Section 313

and was posted as Lecturer in a school

. My daughter Navdeep Kaur was graduate. After her

examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to

the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW is adopted son of

18 killas of land and he died issueless. 6-

currence, said Mangal Singh gave Rs.10

lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were

demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he

inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh

erms with his brothers and father and was residing

with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the

14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, there was electric

in the village. There was hue and cry about the

thieves and the people due to fear and panic

started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun

while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and

Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in that exchange of firing, Naranjan

and carried to his courtyard and he died.

His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone

and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit Singh,

sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch

of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr.

Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said

Nishan Singh in the elections. On that account, Nishan Singh and others

after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated

in the case. I and my father were brought by the police alongwith

15.07.2001 and were illegally detained by

her Shivraj Singh had given telegrams to higher

in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313

Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under:

and carried to his courtyard and he died.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

“I am innocent

I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the

police on

Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal

detention in this context.

9. Accused –

Section 313 Cr.P.C.

“I am innocent

years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983.

occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel

Singh. I was arrested in the case on

My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities

my false implic

enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent.

Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me

discharged and a supplementary report under Section

also mov

10. In their defence, the

Bhupinder Singh

Wakeel Singh, stated that on

and upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be

innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had

gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana.

Wakeel Singh stated

Rahul Bhupinder Singh

14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on

know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that

he had moved an application

marked to DSP Bhupinder Singh.

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 10 )

I am innocent. PWs are inimical towards me and my family m

I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the

police on 15.07.2001 alongwith my licensed gun and cartridges. My son

Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal

detention in this context.”

Rahul Bhupinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of

Section 313 Cr.P.C., while taking plea of alibi,

I am innocent. At the time of alleged occurrence, I was less than 18

years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983.

occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel

Singh. I was arrested in the case on 16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh.

My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities

my false implication. Bhupinder Singh, DSP, Muktsar conducted

enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent.

Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me

discharged and a supplementary report under Section

also moved to the Court.”

In their defence, the accused have examined

Bhupinder Singh, who had conducted enquiry on an application moved by

Wakeel Singh, stated that on 29.08.2001, he had gone to village Rupana

upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be

innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had

gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana.

Wakeel Singh stated that in the first week of July,

Rahul Bhupinder Singh had come to meet him at his village and that on

14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on

know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that

he had moved an application for enquiry to SSP, Muktsar, which was

marked to DSP Bhupinder Singh.

. PWs are inimical towards me and my family members.

I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the

15.07.2001 alongwith my licensed gun and cartridges. My son

Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal

Rahul Bhupinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of

taking plea of alibi, pleaded as under:

At the time of alleged occurrence, I was less than 18

years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983. About 1 week prior to the

occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel

16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh.

My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities against

ation. Bhupinder Singh, DSP, Muktsar conducted

enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent.

Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me

discharged and a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was

accused have examined two witnesses. DW-1 DSP

, who had conducted enquiry on an application moved by

29.08.2001, he had gone to village Rupana

upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be

innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had

gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana. DW-2

in the first week of July, 2001, his nephew

had come to meet him at his village and that on

14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on 15.07.2001, he came to

know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that

for enquiry to SSP, Muktsar, which was

embers.

16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh.

enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

11. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record,

acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed

against them, but held

committed offence

Section 27 of the Arms Act and

Under Section

302

Under Section

458

Under Section

27 of the Arms

Act

12. Learned counsel for the

conviction, submitted that

case and that falsity of the case would be eviden

the star witness

was immediate neighbour

prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that

witness namely PW

would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of oc

be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on

14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer

namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and

that as such, given the fact that t

including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections

had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence.

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 11 )

The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record,

acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed

against them, but held accused Davinder

committed offence punishable under Sections 302,

Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:

Under Section

302 IPC

- To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.2000/- and in default of payment

further RI for 3 months.

Under Section

458 IPC

- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

and to pay a fine of Rs.

payment of fine to undergo further RI for

Under Section

27 of the Arms

Act

- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

to pay a fine of Rs.

fine to undergo further RI for

Learned counsel for the appellant – Davinder Singh

conviction, submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present

case and that falsity of the case would be eviden

the star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW

was immediate neighbour of the complainant, did not support the case of

prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that

witness namely PW-5 Gurmit Singh had been introduced falsely, which

would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of oc

be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on

14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer

namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and

that as such, given the fact that there is delay in sending the case property

including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections

had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence.

The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record,

acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed

Davinder Singh guilty of having

under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under

sentenced him as under:

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

and in default of payment of fine to undergo

months.

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of

payment of fine to undergo further RI for 2 months

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and

to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of

fine to undergo further RI for 1 month

Davinder Singh, while assailing his

he has falsely been implicated in the present

case and that falsity of the case would be evident from the fact that one of

of the prosecution namely PW-3 Baldev Singh, who

of the complainant, did not support the case of

prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that even the other eye-

been introduced falsely, which

would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of occurrence to

be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on

14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer

namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and

here is delay in sending the case property

including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections

had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence. had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged

occurrence,

to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh

also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that

Naranjan Singh

submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be

set aside.

13. Opposing the

where not only the complainant PW

with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW

resided in neighbourhood,

has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight

the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be

instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have

occurred due to the fact that

more than 1½

occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is

evidence inasmuch as

Muktsar stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan

Singh were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001.

Dr. N.R.Duggal

prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on

14.07.2001. It has, thus, been submitted that havi

consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 12 )

Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged

, a group of thieves and dacoits had come to the village and due

to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh

also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that

Naranjan Singh sustained injuries and lost his life.

submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be

Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case

not only the complainant PW-4 Gurdeep Singh has state

with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW

resided in neighbourhood, has fully supported the case of prosecution and

has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight

the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be

instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have

occurred due to the fact that he was deposing in the Court after a gap of

more than 1½ years. It has been submitted that the fact that the

occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is

evidence inasmuch as PW-2 Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,

stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan

were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001.

Dr. N.R.Duggal as regards time of death

prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on

. It has, thus, been submitted that havi

consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW

Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged

thieves and dacoits had come to the village and due

to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh

also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that

lost his life. It has, thus, been

submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be

appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case

4 Gurdeep Singh has stated in tune

with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW-5 Gurmit Singh, who

has fully supported the case of prosecution and

has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight discrepancy in

the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be 15.07.2001

instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have

he was deposing in the Court after a gap of

It has been submitted that the fact that the

occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is fortified from the medical

2 Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,

stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan Singh and Baldev

were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001. Even the opinion of PW-1

death is in tune with the case of

prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on

. It has, thus, been submitted that having regard to the

consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

Singh) and PW

medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had

been held by the trial Court.

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. Since it is a case

apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the

prosecution in this regard. PW

post-mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh

post-mortem report as Ex.

body as under:

“1. Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately

face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest

and right shoulder. They were about 25 in

to .02 cms to

side of the neck which have

oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection

the temporal bone on the right side. Mid

cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same

area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and

tracks we

fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge

of nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recov

the muscle of the right shoul

16. PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated

regards recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the

case of prosecution.

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 13 )

Singh) and PW-5 Gurmit Singh, which is fully corroborated from the

medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had

been held by the trial Court.

We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and

with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the

Since it is a case of homicidal death on account of gun

apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the

prosecution in this regard. PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted the

mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh

mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries found on the dead

body as under:

Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately

face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest

and right shoulder. They were about 25 in

to .02 cms to 1x0.2 cm margins of wound inverted except 3 wounds on the left

side of the neck which have E verted margins. Blood clot

oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection

the temporal bone on the right side. Middle minengial

cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same

area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and

tracks were found leading to the wounds in covering of the brains. There was

fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge

nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recov

the muscle of the right shoulder.”

Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated

recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the

case of prosecution. In any case, the factum of death on account of firing

5 Gurmit Singh, which is fully corroborated from the

medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had

We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and

with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the

of homicidal death on account of gun-shot fire, it is

apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the

1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted the

mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh, proved the

bed the injuries found on the dead

Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately 20”x20” over the

face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest

and right shoulder. They were about 25 in number. Their sizes vary from .02

1x0.2 cm margins of wound inverted except 3 wounds on the left

verted margins. Blood clot and liquid blood was

oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection, there were two holes in

le minengial artery was torn, cranial

cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same

area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and

re found leading to the wounds in covering of the brains. There was

fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge

nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recovered from

Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated as

recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the

In any case, the factum of death on account of firing

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

of gun-shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although

Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing.

17. The occurrence is sought to be established fro

complainant (PW

present in the house

that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his

presence therein is mos

the occurrence, PW

occurrence i.e. on

present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith hi

Rahul Bhupinder Singh

to a lalkara

Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased.

PW-4 further stated that

well as PW

in the verandah

went out in the street and since

Singh and Sohan Singh ha

firing, accused fired two shots

them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from

the testimony of PW

18. Although PW

cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 14 )

shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although

Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing.

The occurrence is sought to be established fro

complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh), who is son of the deceased and was

in the house when the occurrence had taken place. Given the fact

that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his

presence therein is most natural and cannot be doubted. While narrating

the occurrence, PW-4 Gurdeep Singh specifically stated

occurrence i.e. on 14.07.2001 when he alongwith PW

present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith hi

Rahul Bhupinder Singh entered into their house. He stated that pursuant

lalkara raised by Rahul Bhupinder Singh, his father (Davinder

Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased.

4 further stated that one more shot was fired in their house, but he as

well as PW-5 Gurmit Singh managed to save themselves by taking cover

verandah and that thereafter when they raised alarm, the accused

went out in the street and since two more neighbourer

Singh and Sohan Singh had also been attracted on account of

firing, accused fired two shots at them as well as a result of which both of

them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from

the testimony of PW-5 Gurmit Singh.

Although PW-3 Baldev Singh was injured in the occurrence and was also

cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness

shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although

Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing.

The occurrence is sought to be established from the testimony of

4 Gurdeep Singh), who is son of the deceased and was

when the occurrence had taken place. Given the fact

that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his

t natural and cannot be doubted. While narrating

4 Gurdeep Singh specifically stated that on the day of

14.07.2001 when he alongwith PW-5 Gurmit Singh was

present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith his son

entered into their house. He stated that pursuant

raised by Rahul Bhupinder Singh, his father (Davinder

Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased.

hot was fired in their house, but he as

5 Gurmit Singh managed to save themselves by taking cover

and that thereafter when they raised alarm, the accused

two more neighbourers namely Baldev

also been attracted on account of noise of gun

them as well as a result of which both of

them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from

3 Baldev Singh was injured in the occurrence and was also

cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness-box,

Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

he did not support the case of prosecution. PW

statement and stated that he had

had not witnessed any occurrence.

false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out

from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW

Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined

Baldev Singh on

person:

“1. A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the

knee joint. Fresh bleed

19. PW-2 Dr. Jagrity was cross

nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of h

examination so as to either doubt

regard to the aforesaid

complainant (PW

medical evidence in the shape of

presence of PW

had deposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his

statement need not be relied upon.

contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimon

Singh and PW

20. Although learned counsel

the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been

examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 15 )

he did not support the case of prosecution. PW

statement and stated that he had just come to know about the firing, but

had not witnessed any occurrence. The aforesaid statement is apparently

false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out

from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW

Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined

Baldev Singh on 14.07.2001 itself and found the following injuries on his

A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the

knee joint. Fresh bleeding was present.”

2 Dr. Jagrity was cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but

substantial could be elicited during the course of h

examination so as to either doubt her veracity or h

regard to the aforesaid position, wherein the testimon

complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh) and of PW

medical evidence in the shape of statement of

presence of PW-3 Baldev Singh, it is apparent that PW

eposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his

statement need not be relied upon. There is no other evidence to the

contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimon

Singh and PW-5 Gurmit Singh.

Although learned counsel attempted to assail the case of prosecution on

the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been

examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of

he did not support the case of prosecution. PW-3 resiled from his

just come to know about the firing, but

The aforesaid statement is apparently

false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out

from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity,

Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined

14.07.2001 itself and found the following injuries on his

A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the

”

examined on behalf of the accused, but

substantial could be elicited during the course of her cross-

veracity or her opinion. Having

position, wherein the testimonies of the

4 Gurdeep Singh) and of PW-5 Gurmit Singh alongwith

statement of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity shows the

, it is apparent that PW-3 Baldev Singh

eposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his

There is no other evidence to the

contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimonies of PW-4 Gurdeep

attempted to assail the case of prosecution on

the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been

examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

the fact that SI Santokh Singh

has been stated by PW

associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW

Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation

conducted by SI Santokh

Santokh Singh. In any case,

disclosure statement and the recover

from the testimon

Singh. Under these circumstances, non

will not dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is

a case based on eye

evidence where the role of the investig

importance.

21. As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a

perusal of the testimon

Constable Gurjant Singh does sh

of case property

by the laboratory in respect of two parcels

and simple soil

depositing in the FSL after removal of objections.

Singh and PW

case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered

with. A perusal of the report of FSL wou

were intact and were not tampered with

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 16 )

the fact that SI Santokh Singh had expired

has been stated by PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh, who had remained

associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW

Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation

conducted by SI Santokh Singh and has identified the

Santokh Singh. In any case, the factum of the accused having suffered

disclosure statement and the recovery pursuant thereto

from the testimonies of PW-10 Ajaib Singh and PW

Under these circumstances, non-examination of SI Santokh Singh

dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is

a case based on eye-witness account and not

evidence where the role of the investigator

importance.

As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a

perusal of the testimonies of PW-11 HC Major Singh and PW

Constable Gurjant Singh does show that there is some delay in depositing

case property on account of the fact that some objections were raised

by the laboratory in respect of two parcels

and simple soil and thereafter the said two parcels were sent again

depositing in the FSL after removal of objections.

Singh and PW-12 Constable Gurjant Singh

case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered

perusal of the report of FSL wou

were intact and were not tampered with.

xpired that he was not examined, as

13 HC Balwinder Singh, who had remained

associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW-13 HC

Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation

and has identified the signatures of SI

the factum of the accused having suffered

pursuant thereto is also borne out

10 Ajaib Singh and PW-13 HC Balwinder

examination of SI Santokh Singh

dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is

witness account and not solely on circumstantial

ator would assume all the more

As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a

11 HC Major Singh and PW-12

ow that there is some delay in depositing

on account of the fact that some objections were raised

by the laboratory in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil

and thereafter the said two parcels were sent again for

depositing in the FSL after removal of objections. Both PW-11 HC Major

12 Constable Gurjant Singh have stated that as long as

case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered

perusal of the report of FSL would indicate that sample seals

. There is nothing on record to

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case

property as the seals

the delay ipso facto

22. Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder

Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken

a plea that on

gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing

indiscriminately

was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life.

However, sa

dacoits had come to the village and the

indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in

this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any oth

had been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing

arrival of the

As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died

due to exchange of firing

the village is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the

prosecution stands

PW-4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW

substantiated from the medical evidence.

establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been

fired from the gun recovered from accused.

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 17 )

show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case

property as the seals were found to be intact

ipso facto would not affect the case of prosecution.

Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder

Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken

a plea that on 14.07.2001, a group of dacoits comprising

gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing

indiscriminately and that Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun

was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life.

aid plea is not substantiated in any manner inasmuch as in case

dacoits had come to the village and the

indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in

this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any oth

been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing

arrival of the Kala Kaccha thieves/dacoits

As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died

due to exchange of firing on arrival of the Kala Kaccha

is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the

prosecution stands fully established from the consistent testimoni

4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW

substantiated from the medical evidence.

establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been

from the gun recovered from accused.

show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case

were found to be intact. Under these circumstances,

would not affect the case of prosecution.

Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder

Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken

dacoits comprising Kala Kaccha

gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing

Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun and it

was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life.

id plea is not substantiated in any manner inasmuch as in case

dacoits had come to the village and the villagers had fired

indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in

this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any other witness

been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing on account of

thieves/dacoits in the village on 14.07.2001.

As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died

Kala Kaccha thieves/dacoits in

is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the

fully established from the consistent testimonies of

4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW-5 Gurmit Singh, which stand

The report of FSL (Ex.PCC)

establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been

from the gun recovered from accused. The fact that one of the

was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life.

14.07.2001.

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and

CRR-2128-2004 (O&M)

injured/eye-

The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the

trial Court as regards guilt of appellant Da

interference and are hereby affirmed.

same is hereby dismissed.

24. As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant

the findings in respect of acquittal of

Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of

the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to

establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the

complainan

concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare

cases’ so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is

found to be sans merits and is hereby dism

03.04.2025

Vimal

2004 (O&M) and

2004 (O&M)

( 18 )

-witness had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution.

The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the

trial Court as regards guilt of appellant Davinder Singh do not warrant

interference and are hereby affirmed. Finding no merit in the appeal, the

same is hereby dismissed.

As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant

the findings in respect of acquittal of Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder

Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of

the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to

establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the

complainant for enhancement of sentence in respect of Davinder Singh is

concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare

so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is

found to be sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Whether reportable:

had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution.

The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the

vinder Singh do not warrant any

Finding no merit in the appeal, the

As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant seeking reversal of

Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder

Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of

the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to

establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the

t for enhancement of sentence in respect of Davinder Singh is

concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare

so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is

issed.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL )

JUDGE

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Yes/No

had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution.