CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-31-DB-2004  

Date of Decision: 29.04.2025

JOGINDER SINGH  

... Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Ms. Sheenu Sura, Amicus Curiae

for the appellant.

Mr. Siddhart Attri, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2003 passed by the Sessions

Judge, Gurdaspur.

2. The FIR was registered on 27.10.2000, the judgmen t of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Session Judge, Gurdaspur is

dated 23.10.2023, the appeal was filed on 03.01.2004 and the matter is being

taken up for hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 24 years from the

date of registration of the FIR.

3. The prosecution allegations as disclosed by PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh

are that he and his brother Harinder Singh were employed as constables in

the Police department. On 26.10.2000 he and his brother Harinder Singh had

come on leave to their village Gill Manj on Diwali occasion. On the night of

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -2-

26.10.2000 at about 8:30 p.m. he, his brother Harinder Singh, mother

Harbhajan Kaur, his brother's wife Manjit Kaur and his father Sukhjit Singh

were lighting the lamps on the roof. In the meanwhile his neighbours

Joginder Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Sukhram Singh and Hardip Singh sons of

Mewa Singh were standing in the courtyard of their house in a drunken

condition. They started hurling abuses at them and all of them came up stairs

on the roof and started pelting stones towards them. They (complainant side)

too threw stones towards them (accused side) in defence. Kulwinder Singh

threw a stone on the temple of his brother Harinder Singh whereas Sukhram

Singh struck Harinder Singh with a stone. His father Sukhjit Singh also threw

stones in self defence which hit on the forehead of Hardip Singh. Thereupon,

Hardip Singh exhorted Joginder Singh to shoot them dead with the gun and

that they should not escape. Thereafter, Joginder Singh fired a shot with his

single barrel 12 bore gun, pellets of which struck his brother Harinder Singh

on his back and his father Sukhjit Singh sustained firearm injuries on his

chest and stomach. His father being of old age fell down. They raised a hue

and cry after which all the assailants fled away from the spot after abusing

them. His brother Harinder Singh went away for his medical treatment

whereas he started making arrangements for a conveyance for the medical

treatment of his father in the hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries

at the spot at about 01:00 a.m. (mid night). He, his mother Harbhajan Kaur,

his brother's wife Manjit Kaur and Harinder Singh witnessed this occurrence

in the light of an electric bulb. The motive behind the alleged occurrence was

that they had been tethering cattle on the vacant panchayat land which was

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -3-

objected to by the accused for the last about one and half years on account of

which there used to be verbal altercation and proceedings U/s 107/151

Cr.P.C. between accused Sukhram Singh and his father Sukhjit Singh had

also been initiated. He along with his brother and uncle went to lodge the

report vide statement Ex.PK recorded by SI Skattar Singh on 27.10.2000.

4. On 27.10.2000 PW/12 SI Skattar Singh took up the investigation

and recorded the statement Ex.PK of Ajit Pal Singh which was duly signed

by him in token of its correctness after it was read over to him. He made his

endorsement Ex.PL/1 on it, on the basis of which the special report was sent

through Constable Joginder Singh. Thereafter, he along with other police

officials went to the spot at village Gill Manj and prepared the inquest report

Ex.PJ on the dead body of Sukhjit Singh in the presence of Charan Singh and

Jagdish Pal Singh. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination with

police request Ex.PH.

5. On 27.10.2000 PW/4 Dr. Harjinder Pal Singh along with

members of the Board of Doctors conducted the post/mortem examination on

the dead body of Sukhjit Singh aged 60 years vide post/mortem report Ex.PG

and found the following injuries:/

1. .5X.5cm lacerated wound, inverted margins, burning of

margin present on anterior aspect of left shoulder.

2. .5x.5cm lacerated wound with inverted and burnt margins,

4 cms medial and 1cm above the left nipple.

3. .6x.5cm lacerated wound were present in third inter costal

space left side, 3 cms lateral to mid line.

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -4-

4. .6x.5cm lacerated wound, 15cms lateral to mid line and 22

cms below the left nipple on abdomen. Margin burnt inverted.

5. Lacerated wound .5x.5cm, 4 cms above the left elbow joint

on on posterio lateral aspect with margin burnt and inverted.

6. Lacerated wound .5x.5cm below injury no. 5, similar nature

on the lateral aspect of left forearm.

7. .5x.5cm lacerated wound burn margin inverted on left wrist

joint and medial side.

8. An abrasion 2x1mm on the left iliac region .6cm inside the

superior iliac spine.

In the medical opinion of the Doctors the cause of death was due

to injury to vital organs i.e. heart and lung left side which was sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante

mortem in nature. Probable time that had elapsed between injuries and death

was not mentioned and between death and post/mortem was within 12 to 24

hours. Possibility of injuries other than firearm injuries could be possibly

caused with brick bats. There were only firearm injuries on the body of the

deceased. Further, two pellets were removed from the body.

6. The Investigating Officer SI Skattar Singh took into possession

stones lying at the spot and pieces of glass after making them into parcel vide

memo Ex.PP attested by ASI Joginder Singh and Harbhajan Singh. He also

prepared the rough site plan Ex.PQ with correct marginal notes. He then took

into possession the MLR of Harinder Singh from MHC Iqbal Singh. He also

produced before him one undershirt Ex.P.1, pant Ex.P.2, underwear Ex.P.3

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -5-

and shirt Ex.P.4. These clothes were having marks of bullets. He took the

same into possession after making a parcel vide memo Ex.PR attested by

MHC Iqbal Singh and ASI Joginder Singh. A second parcel containing

pieces of stones Ex.P.5 and small pieces of broken glass Ex.P.6 were also

taken into possession. He also recorded the statement of injured Harinder

Singh. HC Vijay Kumar produced before him clothes of the deceased i.e.

shirt Ex.P.7, pajama Ex.P.8, under shirt Ex.P.9 and underwear Ex.P.10 which

were all bloodstained and having spots of pellets with the receipt of the dead

body. One parcel containing two pellets of .12 bore gun were sealed in a

parcel with seal impression 'VS' which were taken into possession vide

memo Ex.PS attested by witnesses.

7. On 26.10.2000 PW/2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar conducted the medical

examination of Harinder Singh vide MLR Ex.PB and found the following

injuries on his person:/

1. A lacerated wound 2x0.5 cm on right side and at its mid level

of the nose. The margins were inverted and black.

2. A lacerated wound 2.5x0.5 cm on the right side of the face,

just below the right eye. The margins were inverted and black.

3. A lacerated wound 2.5x0.5cm on the right side of the head, 4

cms above the right pinna. The margins were inverted and black.

4. A lacerated wound of 0.5cm diameter on the back and upper

half of right forearm. The margins were inverted and black.

5. A lacerated wound of 0.5 cm diameter on the mid line and mid

of back of chest. The margins were inverted and black.

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -6-

6. A lacerated wound of 0.5 cm diameter on the left side of back

of chest, 6 cms above the outer side from injury no. 5. The

margins were inverted and black.

7. A lacerated wound of 0.5cm diameter on the back and right

side of chest, 11 cms from injury no. 5. The margins were

inverted and black.

8. A lacerated wound 0.5cm diameter on the back and right side

of the chest, 12 cms from injury no. 5. The margins were

inverted and black.

9. A lacerated wound 0.5cm diameter on right side of the chest,

12 cms from injury no. 8. This margins were inverted and black.

10. A lacerated wound of 0.5 cm diameter on the right side and

back of the chest, 8 cms from injury no. 8. The margins were

inverted and black.

11. A lacerated wound of 0.5 cm diameter on the back and left

side of the chest, 14 cms below the outer side of injury no. 5,

margins were inverted and black.

12. A lacerated wound 0.5 cm diameter, 13 cms below injury no.

11 on the back. The margins were inverted and black.

13. A lacerated wound 0.5cm diameter on the back and mid of

left buttock. The margins were inverted and black.

14. A lacerated wound 0.5 cm diameter on the back and outer

side side of left buttock. The margins were inverted and black.

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -7-

15. A lacerated wound 0.5 cm diameter on the back of the head.

The margins were inverted and black.

16. A contusion of 2.0x1.5 cm on the left side of the nose.

17. A contusion 2x2cms on the left side of the head. Just above

the left pinna. 

All the injuries were kept for x/ray examination. Injuries no. 16

and 17 were opined to have been caused by a blunt weapon and the rest of

the injuries were opined to have been caused by a firearm. After getting the

report of the radiologist, all the injuries were declared simple but the firearm

injuries were declared to be dangerous to life. Four firearm pellets were sent

to the Police Station on 08.11.2000 after receiving the same from the Surgical

Specialist.

8. A single barrel gun of .12 bore Ex.P.13 was take n into

possession from Joginder Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PL attested by ASI

Joginder Singh and Ajit Pal Singh. He also prepared the rough sketch of the

gun Ex.PL/1 and also prepared the site plan Ex.PL/2 of the place of recovery

of the gun. On 03.11.2000 accused Kulwinder Singh was arrested. After

recording statements of PWs and on completion of the investigation, the

accused were challaned.

9. On committal a prima facie case under Sections 302, 307, 323,

34 IPC was found to have been made out against the accused. Charges were

framed accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. The prosecution examined PW/1 Janak Singh Dhanj al

Draftsman, PW/2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar, PW/3 Balbir Singh Armourer, PW/4 Dr.

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -8-

Harjinder Pal Singh, PW/5 Mulakh Raj Licence Clerk, PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh

complainant, PW/7 Dr. Iqbal Singh, PW/8 Harinder Singh, an injured eye

witness, PW/9 Joginder Singh Constable No. 1733, PW/10 Iqbal Singh HC

No.380, PW/11 Malkiat Singh HC No. 599/ASR, PW/12 Investigating

Officer SI Skattar Sigh, PW/13 Vijay Kumar HC No. 398, PW/14 Sarabjit

Singh HC No. 271, PW/15 Ram Chander HC No. 359, PW/16 Baljinder

Singh HC No. 125. Thereafter the incriminating circumstances appearing in

the prosecution evidence were put to the accused in their statements under

Section 313 Cr.IP.C. in which they denied the prosecution allegations and

pleaded false implication. They also examined DW/1 Sucha Singh, BDPO,

DW/2 Hardev Singh, Panchayat Secretary, DW/3 Kultar Singh Sarpanch in

defence.

11. Based on the evidence led, while accused Hardeep Singh was

acquitted the other accused came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court

of Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and order of sentence dated

23.10.2003 as under:/

Convicts Offence

under

Section

Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI   in

default   of

payment   of

fine

Joginder

Singh

302 IPC Imprisonment

for life

Rs.2000// RI for 01

year

307 IPC RI for 06 years Rs.1000// RI for 01

year

Kulwinder

Singh

323 IPC RI for 06

months

Rs.1000// RI for 01

month

Sukhram

Singh

323 IPC RI for 06

months

Rs.1000// RI for 01

month

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -9-

12. The instant appeal has been filed by accused/appellant/Joginder

Singh challenging his conviction.

13. The learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant contends

that there is a considerable delay in the registration of the FIR. The

occurrence took place at 8:30 p.m on 26.10.2000. The statement leading to

the registration of the FIR was recorded on the night intervening 27.10.2000

at 02.00 AM. However, the Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at

05.00 AM. This delay is fatal to the prosecution case. No independent eye/

witness was examined as a prosecution witness and the conviction has been

based only on the statement of the complainant/Ajit Pal Singh (PW6) and his

brother Harinder Singh (PW/8). No ballistic report is available to substantiate

the prosecution allegations that the weapon of offence recovered from

Joginder Singh was used in the occurrence. Reliance is placed on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pritinder Singh @ Lovely

Versus The State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 and Ram Singh Versus

The State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2024. She, thus, contends that

the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted

of the charges framed against him.

14. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends

that there was no delay in the registration of the FIR. The complainant is the

son of the deceased and a most natural eye/witness. The other eye/witness

injured Harinder Singh (PW8) is another son of the deceased. The question of

these two witnesses falsely implicating the accused and letting go of the

actual assailant does not arise. The medical evidence is totally in consonance

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -10-

with the ocular account. As regards the ballistic report, he contends that the

statement of PW3/Balbir Singh Armourer was recorded as per which the

weapon in question was in a workable condition and fit for firing a shot.

Even otherwise, in a case based on eye/witnesses the report of the ballistic

expert would only be corroborative in nature unless the deposition of the eye/

witnesses does not inspire confidence. In the instant case, the witnesses are

completely believable. Therefore he, contends that the present appeal was

liable to be dismissed.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record.

16. As regards the purportedly delay in lodging the FIR Ex.PK dated

27.10.2000 at 2:00 a.m., undoubtedly, the occurrence had taken place on the

night of 26.10.2000 at 8:30 p.m. As per PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh, he had gone to

call a doctor from village Chhina whereas Harinder Singh had gone to Civil

Hospital immediately after the occurrence but he had not asked his brother to

inform the police. He admits that he along with his maternal uncle from

village Kala Bala had gone to Kahnuwan to lodge the report with SHO, PS

Kahnuwan and the police visited the spot and stayed there for about 3/4

hours. PW/8 Harinder Singh injured also admits that after sustaining injuries

he went to Civil Hospital, Kahnuwan and then to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur.

He admits that PS Kahnuwan is at a distance of half kilometer from Civil

Hospital, Kahnuwan but he had not gone to Police Station nor had he

informed the police officials at the police Naka at Sathiali bridge. He

admitted that he had not informed the police officials even at Gurdaspur and

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -11-

his statement was recorded by the police in Civil Hospital at about 1/2 a.m.

on 27.10.2000. It is, therefore, evident from the testimonies of these two

witnesses that some time was consumed by the complainant in lodging the

report. Therefore, the testimony of their two most relevant witnesses is

required to be examined with care and caution along with the evidence of the

other PWs.

17. Coming to the evidence of these two witnesses namely PW/6

Ajit Pal Singh and PW/8 Harinder Singh, it is not disputed that accused

Joginder Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Sukhram Singh and Hardip Singh were

real brothers and on the complainant side deceased Sukhjit Singh was the

father of PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh and PW/8 Harinder Singh. Accused Hardip

Singh, complainant Ajit Pal Singh and injured Harinder Singh were posted as

constables in the Police Department at their respective stations. PW/11

Malkiat Singh Head Constable proved from the record vide entry no. 411

dated 26.10.2000 Ex. PO that Harinder Singh absented from duty in Police

Lines, Amritsar whereas PW/14 HC Sarabjit Singh further proves from the

official record of Service training at Kapurthala that Ajit Pal Singh was on a

two days casual leave for 25.10.2000 and 26.10.2000 and came back on duty

on 31.10.2000 marking his absence vide Ex.PW.14/C. PW/16 C. Baljinder

Singh further proves the absence of accused Hardip Singh vide DDR No. 7

dated 26.10.2000 vide Ex.PW. 16/A at 4 p.m. while posted in 2

nd

Commando

Bn. Bahadurgarh. Therefore, the presence of injured Harinder Singh PW/8,

Ajit Pal Singh PW/6 and presence of accused Hardip Singh at the time of

alleged occurrence cannot be ruled out. The medical evidence of PW/2 Dr.

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -12-

Sudhir Kumar proves as many as 15 wounds with a firearm on the person of

Harinder Singh vide MLR Ex. PB dated 26.10.2000 at 10.45 p.m. Besides

these there is a contusion on the nose and also on the left pinna. The

consistent evidence of PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh and PW/8 Harinder Singh further

proves that Kulwinder Singh also caused injury on the temple side of

Harinder Singh with a brick bat whereas Sukhram Singh caused an injury on

the nose of Harinder Singh and these injuries were quite consistent with the

medical evidence. Even otherwise the presence of the accused on the Diwali

festival in their house was obvious and further injuries on the person of

Hardip Singh proved by PW/7 Dr. Iqbal Singh established his presence.

However, no injury had been attributed to accused Hardip Singh because of

which he was rightly acquitted. Accused Kulwinder Singh and Sukhram

Singh were convicted for lesser offences.

18. PW/4 Dr. Harjinder Pal Singh has clearly deposed that a pellet

was removed from the chamber of the left ventricle of Sukhjit Singh and

another pellet was removed from another peritoneal cavity of abdomen, just

below the peritoneum corresponding to injury no.4. He opined that even if

the firearm injury is caused at a distance of more than 50 ft. it will still cause

burning but admitted that he was not a ballistic expert so he was unable to

say if the burning or blackening could occur within a distance of 2/3 feet.

Likewise PW/2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar also opined that firearm injuries

numbering 15 on the person of Harinder Singh were dangerous to life for the

patient and the four firearm pellets were sent to Police Station after receipt

from the Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. He also observed

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -13-

blackening around the margin of the wound in all the firearm injuries but

deposed that he was not certain if blackening could only be possible if the

firearm injury was given from a distance of 2/3 feet only. It may be noted

here that doctors cannot give an opinion of a ballistic expert. However, the

fact remains that all 15 lacerated wounds with inverted margins on the person

of Harinder Singh and 7 injuries with inverted margins to deceased Sukhjit

Singh were caused with pellets as a result of the gunshot fired by Joginder

Singh accused and the trustworthy, reliable and credible evidence of Harinder

Singh and eye witness Ajit Pal Singh cannot be doubted. It further does not

stand to reason that the victim would substitute the real assailant with an

innocent person for such a heinous crime. Thus, the testimonies of these two

witnesses cannot be disbelieved and is in consonance with the medical

evidence.

19. The Investigating Officer PW/12 SI Skattar Singh had also taken

into possession pellets Ex.P.11 and P.12 of the .12 bore gun and clothes of the

injured Harinder Singh Ex.P.1 to P.4 having marks of bullets. He had also

recovered a single barrel gun of 12 bore Ex.P.13 from the possession of

accused Joginder Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PL and further received the

parcel containing four pellets recovered from Harinder Singh with report

Ex.PU. PW/3 Balbir Singh armourer having experience of testing firearms

for 17 years examined the single barrel .12 bore gun checked its action

hammer and trigger and found the same in working condition. Therefore, his

act of not firing a shot from the said gun or the default of the investigating

agency to send the pellets and the gun to the ballistic expert does not

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -14-

adversely affect the merits of the prosecution case. We may also add that in

the case of an eye version account the report of a ballistic expert would be

primarily corroborative in nature. PW/5 Mulakh Raj license Clerk proved

that licence No. L/18/Ladakh/81 in respect of 12 bore single barrel rifle no.

4931 was issued in the name of Joginder Singh son of Mewa Singh by Baljit

Singh Sandhu G.A to D.C. Gurdaspur. Therefore, the description of the

occurrence as given by PW/6 Ajit Pal Singh and PW/8 Harinder Singh about

receiving gun shot injuries by Sukhjit Singh and also by PW8/Harinder

Singh himself cannot be disbelieved and the evidence of these PWs is clear,

cogent and consistent as to the manner in which the occurrence took place

and the role played by each accused.

20. In Pritinder Singh @ Lovely (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in a case of circumstantial evidence held that where there was a serious doubt

with regard to the credibility of the witnesses the failure to examine a

ballistic expert would be a defect in the prosecution case. In the instant case,

as has been already mentioned above, it is an eye version account which is

clear and consistent and therefore, the absence of a ballistic report would not

create a doubt in the prosecution case.

21. In Ram Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

where there was a direct eye/witness account which was credible then the

omission to obtain a ballistic report and the non/examination of a ballistic

expert would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, if the evidence of

the eye/witnesses did not inspire confidence or was suffering from

inconsistencies, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and the examination of

CRA-D-31-DB-2004                                                                        -15-

an expert may prove to be fatal to the prosecution case. In the instant case, as

has already been mentioned hereinabove, the deposition of PW6/Ajit Pal

(complainant) and the injured witness PW8/Harinder Singh are clear and

consistent and cannot be disbelieved.

22. The upshort of the aforementioned discussion is that the

prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same stands

dismissed.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)          (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE JUDGE

29.04.2025

JITESH  Whether speaking/reasoned:-  Yes/No

Whether reportable:-          Yes/No