IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH  

1. Crl. Appeal-D No. 1105-DB of 2 017(O&M)

Date of Decision: May 3 , 2025. 

Gurpreet Singh ...... APPELLANT(s)  

Versus  

State of Punjab …... RESPONDENT (s)  

2. Crl. Appeal-AD No. 88 of 20 19(O&M)

Lakhwinder Singh ...... APPELLANT(s)  

Versus  

State of Punjab and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)  

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALOK JAIN  

Argued by: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate 

for the appellant in CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017.

Mr. K.B.Raheja, Advocate

for the appellant in CRA-AD No.88 of 2019 and

for the complainant in CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017.

Mr. R.S.Pandher, Addl.AG, Punjab.

*****  

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see  

the judgment?  

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?  

*****  

LISA GILL, J. 

1. Appellant – Gurpreet Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No.1105-DB

of 2017 challenging judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2017 and order of

sentence dated 07.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[2] 

302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, besides,

payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for

six months.

2. CRA-AD No.88 of 2019 has been filed by complain ant –

Lakhwinder Singh challenging judgment dated 31.10.2017 to the extent that one

of the accused, Dalip Singh has been acquitted. He also prays for enhancement of

sentence imposed upon Gurpreet Singh from rigorous imprisonment for life to

that of death, besides, seeking compensation.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution version are that, telephonic

message was received on 02.08.2011 from MHC, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur

regarding admission of Amrik Singh (deceased) son of Harbans Singh with fire

arm injuries at Mission Hospital at Ferozepur. On receipt of this information,

Inspector Jaswant Singh SHO (PW12) alongwith ASI Ashwani Kumar and other

police officials reached Mission Hospital, Ferozepur from Police Station Sadar.

Opinion of doctor regarding fitness of injured to make statement was sought, upon

which injured was declared unfit to record a statement. Statement of Lakhwinder

Singh (PW1), brother of the injured was recorded on the basis of which FIR

(Ex.PW12/5) was registered. Lakhwinder Singh in his statement, Ex.P1, stated

that he was an agriculturist, he and his brother were also carrying on the business

of commission agency alongwith his younger brother Amrik Singh. On

02.08.2011 at about 12.30 noon, he alongwith his brother Amrik Singh (deceased)

and son Jujhar Singh (PW2) went to Grain market, Ferozepur Cantt. in their car

to enquire about the rate of moong daal (pulse). When they alighted from their

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[3] 

car, a jeep driven by Gurpreet Singh son of Baj Singh was about to strike against

him but he jumped aside. Gurpreet Singh alongwith Dalip Singh son of Baj Singh

armed with a revolver alongwith two unknown persons having .12 bore gun

alighted from the jeep. Gurpreet Singh drew out a revolver from his pocket and

exhorted that a lesson be taught to them for not settling accounts. Dalip Singh then

fired a shot in the air from his revolver, Gurpreet Singh fired two shots from his

revolver towards his brother Amrik Singh which hit his stomach as a result of

which Amrik Singh fell down. Alarm was raised upon which all accused fled from

the spot alongwith respective weapons. Lakhwinder Singh further stated that he

and his son Jujhar Singh took his brother to Mission Hospital, Ferozepur and that

motive behind the incident is that they had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from

Gurpreet Singh. This amount had been returned but Gurpreet Singh was still

demanding this amount and it is due to this reason that accused fired shots upon

his brother with an intention to kill him. Initially, FIR under Section 307 IPC was

registered but upon death of Amrik Singh on 02.08.2011 at about 7.30 p.m.,

offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Investigation was carried out by SHO

Jaswant Singh (PW12). Spot was visited and draft site plan (Ex.PW12/6)

prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Medico Legal report is Ex.

PW14/P is on record. Post Mortem of the body was conducted and post mortem

report, Ex.PW9/2 is on record. Appellant – Gurpreet Singh was arrested on

05.08.2011 and on the basis of disclosure statement made by him a licenced

revolver, two empty cartridges, five live cartridges were recovered and taken in

police possession vide memo Ex.PW12/16. Accused Dalip Singh, Bohar, and

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[4] 

Pamma were found innocent during investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, challan/final report was presented

against Gurpreet Singh. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused. Case

was committed for trial by learned Area Magistrate to the court of learned

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed

for summoning Dalip Singh, Pamma and Bohar Singh to face trial. Application

qua Dalip Singh was allowed on 04.05.2013. Application qua Hira Singh and

Pamma Singh was dismissed on 04.05.2013 and 08.01.2014 respectively. Charge

under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act was

framed against Gurpreet Singh and Dalip Singh on 15.01.2014, to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution examined as many as fourteen (14) witnesses to buttress

its case. FSL report, Ex.PA and PB were also tendered in evidence. Statement of

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded with entire incriminating

evidence being put to them. They claimed innocence and false implication. Dalip

Singh claimed that he is an employee of PSPCL and was declared innocent by

police and that a false case was registered against him. Gurpreet Singh while

pleading innocence claimed that the present was a blind murder case. Number of

persons were arrested and ultimately false case was registered against him while

others were let off. Three witnesses were examined in defence.

6. Learned trial Court on considering the evidence on record, facts and

circumstances, concluded that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt against Gurpreet Singh but had failed to do so in respect to accused Dalip

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[5] 

Singh. Accordingly, Gurpreet Singh was convicted for commission of murder of

Amrik Singh and sentenced as detailed in the foregoing paras. Dalip Singh was,

however, acquitted of the charge framed against him.

7.

Aggrieved therefrom, CRA No.1105-DB of 2017 has been filed by

Gurpreet Singh challenging his conviction and sentence, while CRA-AD No.88 of

2019 was filed by Lakhwinder Singh challenging acquittal of Dalip Singh, besides,

seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon Gurpreet Singh.

8. Learned counsel for appellant - Gurpreet Singh vehemently argued

that learned trial Court has ignored the fact that evidence on record does not in any

manner lead to the conclusion of guilt of applleant - Gurpreet Singh. It was

submitted that presence of complainant-Lakhwinder Singh and Jujhar Singh,

alleged eye witnesses, is not proved. This is evident from the fact that though both

PW1 and PW2 i.e. Lakhwinder Singh and Jujhar Singh claimed to have witnessed

the occurrence and have also stated that they lifted Amrik Singh (deceased) in an

injured condition and took him to Mission Hospital, Ferozepur in their car but no

blood stained clothes of any of these witnesses were presented before the police

authorities. In fact, both the said witnesses stated that their clothes did not get

blood stained while lifting the injured putting him in the car and no blood had even

fallen in the car. While referring to the statement of PW12, Jaswant Singh, it was

submitted that the car in which injured was taken to Mission Hospital was not even

examined. It was further submitted that as per MLR of deceased, Ex.PW14/B,

column of name of relatives or friends who brought the injured to hospital was left

blank and in the column of arrival, name of Inspector Jaswant Singh is mentioned.

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[6] 

This fact by itself, it was submitted, indicates that deceased was brought to hospital

by the police officials and it is a clear cut case of blind murder. Moreover, name

of complainant Lakhwinder Singh in the Bed Head ticket (EX.PW12/F) has been

written at later point of time.

9. Learned counsel for appellant further argued vehemently that as per

the first version, it is Gurpreet Singh who was attributed a

Lalkara and two shots

are attributed to Dalip Singh. The entire version was changed subsequently because

it was realised by complainant side that Dalip Singh was a Government employee

and was on duty at the time of alleged occurrence. Therefore, it is with the

connivance of police that entire version was changed. Reference was made to

alleged photocopy of FIR, Ex.D3. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted

that as per FSL report, Ex. PA, no definite opinion could be given in respect to

bullets recovered from the body of Amrik Singh, therefore, said bullets cannot be

connected to the weapon allegedly recovered from Gurpreet Singh. Moreover,

there is no evidence on record to indicate that there was any motive with the

appellant to have murdered Amrik Singh. There is no evidence to indicate that

there was any money transaction between Gurpreet Singh and deceased Amrik

Singh. Furthermore, once it is the case of the complainant himself that he

alongwith Amrik Singh and Jujhar Singh had gone to the grain market without any

prior schedule and only as per chance, there was no question of appellant having

knowledge that deceased Amrik Singh would be present in the grain market. It

was, thus, prayed that evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction

of Gurpreet Singh, thus, present appeal be allowed, judgment and order dated

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[7] 

31.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur be set aside

and appellant be acquitted of the charges against him.

10. Per contra learned counsel for State submits that impugned judgment

and order has been correctly passed by learned trial Court after proper appreciation

of evidence on record. It is proved on record that death of Amrik Singh was

homicidal in nature and had been caused by Gurpreet Singh from the licenced

weapon recovered from him. Presence of complainant Lakhwinder Singh and

Jujhar Singh, who are natural witnesses is duly proved on record. Reference to the

so-called first FIR, Ex.D3, is of no use to the appellant because said document is

not proved on record and its authenticity is clearly suspect. All arguments, as raised

by learned counsel for appellant had been refuted by learned counsel for State, who

sought dismissal of the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for complainant submits that the clear cut eye-

witness account by the complainant and his son Jujhar Singh deposing as PW1and

PW2, respectively, cogently proves the involvement of Dalip Singh as well in

murder of Amrik Singh. Dalip Singh, it was submitted, has been incorrectly

acquitted by learned trial Court. It was, thus, prayed that CRA-AD No.88 of 2019

be allowed and Dalip Singh be convicted for the offences as charged and sentenced

to the maximum punishment as provided under the law. It was also prayed that

sentence imposed upon Gurpreet Singh is inadequate, thus same be enhanced.

12. We heard learned counsel for parties at length and have carefully

perused the record.

13. It is a matter of record that on receipt of information about admission

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[8] 

of Amrik Singh at Mission Hospital, Ferozepur, SHO Jaswant Singh, PW12,

alongwith other police officials proceeded to the said hospital. Upon the doctor

declaring the injured unfit to record his statement, statement of PW1 Lakhwinder

Singh i.e., brother of deceased was recorded, on the basis of which FIR,

Ex.PW12/5, was registered at about 7.15 p.m. FIR was initially registered under

Sections 307/34 IPC alongwith Section 25 of Arms Act, with Section 302 IPC

added later upon death of Amrik Singh at about 7.30 p.m. Special report was

received by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (D) at about 9.30 p.m. on

02.08.2011 itself. As per affidavit, Ex.P1, of Dr. Aparjita Singh, Medical Officer,

Mission Hospital, Ferozepur, Amrik Singh was admitted at the hospital on

02.08.2011 at about 1.15 p.m. with gun shot injury to the abdomen. Intimation was

immediately sent to Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur. Patient alongwith his brother

Lakhwinder Singh gave primary history of injuries sustained by Amrik Singh to

the extent that he was shot in the stomach twice by a man who got out of a jeep

with gun and incident took place near Airtel office, Ferozepur Cantt. on 02.08.2011

at 12.45 p.m. As per MLR, Ex.PW14/B, following injuries were found on the

person of Amrik Singh:-

“i) Gunshot injury to Abdomen – Entry wound 10 cm away from

umbilicus on the right side in the midclavicular line.

ii) Gunshot injury to Abdomen – Entry wound 5 cm above

anterior superior iliac spine on the right side in the midaxillary

line.”

14. Both the injuries were stated to be dangerous to life and probable

duration between injury and death was less than one hour. MLR, Ex.PW14/B,

was identified by Dr. Aparjita. She further stated in her affidavit that x-ray of

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[9] 

abdomen of patient was conducted, which revealed two radio opaque objects in

the pelvis. Patient was posted for laparotomy. He was operated upon by Dr. Anurag

Ameen. However, Amrik Singh passed away at 7.30 p.m. on 02.08.2011. X-ray

report, clothes, MLR, death certificate and dead body were handed over to the

police officials. Dr. Aparjita Singh (PW1) has categorically stated that as per

information revealed to her by relatives of patient, only one person came on a jeep

and fired two shots from his gun upon the patient Amrik Singh. She denied that

some unknown persons had brought the injured to the hospital and name of

Lakhwinder Singh was introduced at a later stage. PW9, Dr. Rajinder Manchanda,

Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur carried out post mortem upon Amrik

Singh. He has specifically deposed in this respect. He has deposed about two gun

shot wounds on the person of Amrik Singh besides one incised wound. As per post

mortem report duly proved by Dr. Rajinder Manchanda, PW9, cause of death was

due to shock and haemorrhage. Injury to vital organs i.e. small and large intestines

and mesentery due to fire arm injury was found which was ante mortem in nature

and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is, thus, proved on

record that death of Amrik Singh was homicidal in nature, caused due to gun shot

injuries in the abdomen which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course

of nature.

15. It is also a matter of record that pursuant to disclosure statement of

Gurpreet Singh, his licensed weapon was recovered alongwith empty cartridges

which were duly sent for examination to CFSL through PW8, Head Constable Raj

Kulwinder. Doubtlessly, as per FSL report, Ex.PA, no definite opinion could be

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[10] 

given regarding the two jacketed bullets marked, CB/1 and CB/2. However, this

fact by itself cannot be of any avail to appellant in view of the clear and cogent

evidence on record, including ocular evidence, which is sufficient to sustain

conviction of appellant.

16. It is to be noted at this stage that PW1 and PW2 i.e., brother and

nephew of the deceased have given a consistent eye witness account of the incident

as it unfolded and as is revealed in the FIR itself. They were subjected to lengthy

cross examination but nothing could be elicited in favour of appellant - Gurpreet

Singh. Both these witnesses in one voice stated that it was Gurpreet Singh who

fired two shots which hit Amrik Singh in the abdomen. We do not find any merit

in the argument raised on behalf of appellant - Gurpreet Singh that presence of

PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW2 Jujhar Singh at the spot of occurrence is

doubtful. Such argument is not substantiated in any manner. It is a matter of record

that the incident in question took place at about 12.00/12.30 noon and as per

intimation (Ex. P4) sent by Mission Hospital to the Police Station, it is specifically

mentioned that patient Amrik Singh had been admitted to hospital on 02.08.2011

at 1.00 p.m. with diagnosis of gun shot injury. It is thereafter that police personnel

led by the then SHO Jaswant Singh proceeded to the spot. Medical record of the

hospital available on record (Ex.P8 and Ex.PW14) also indicates the time of

incident to be about 12.45 p.m. and examination of patient is noted to be 1.15 p.m.

Informant is mentioned to be the brother Lakhwinder Singh. Bed Head Ticket

records, x-ray report show two radio opaque objects in the pelvis at 2.00 p.m.

Merely because name of Lakhwinder Singh was not recorded in the MLR, by no

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[11] 

stretch of imagination creates a dent in the prosecution version as was urged by

learned counsel for appellant.

17. It is to be noted that application dated 02.08.2011, Ex.PW14/F, was

submitted by SHO Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. seeking issuance of MLR of

injured Amrik Singh to ascertain actual position of injuries. Police personnel,

specifically Inspector Jaswant Singh SHO of the Police Station had arrived at the

hospital only after receiving intimation about admission of the patient Amrik

Singh. Furthermore, reference to photocopy of so-called FIR, Ex.D3, by learned

counsel for appellant, is also of no use because FIR, Ex.PW12/5, was registered

promptly on the statement of Lakhwinder Singh i.e. Ex.P1. It has been correctly

held by learned trial Court that no reliance can be placed on document Ex.D3 for

the reason that apart from being a photocopy, first page thereof is same as

Ex.PW12/5 whereas second page mentions the facts differently. In the actual FIR

(Ex.PW12/5), all rows are in continuity and there is no blank space on any of the

pages whereas in Ex.D3 second page ends abruptly with most of the said second

page being empty and blank with a separate version starting on the next page. Such

sequence does not lend credence to genuineness of the document. Thus, it has been

correctly held by learned trial Court that in the absence of any affirmative evidence

to show the source of this document, no reliance can be placed on it to conclusively

hold that there has been manipulation of any facts. Moreover, it was only the first

page of Ex.D3 which is recorded to have been put to PW12 - Investigating Officer.

18. The factum of co-accused Dalip Singh being acquitted on the basis of

evidence on record cannot be of any avail to present appellant in the given factual

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[12] 

matrix where the evidence clearly proves the case against him beyond all

reasonable doubt. Similarly, in the given facts and circumstances, reference to

statement of PW1 and PW2 to the effect that their clothes were not stained with

blood or that there were no blood stains in the car cannot be the basis for acquittal

of appellant - Gurpreet Singh. Equally devoid of merit is the argument that non-

proving of motive on record deals a fatal blow to the prosecution case. In the light

of clear and cogent ocular version which is duly corroborated by medical evidence

on record, presence or otherwise of motive fades into oblivion. Thus, in our

considered opinion, prosecution has indeed successfully proved its case against

Gurpreet Singh beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. Allegation against Dalip Singh was that he, when present alongwith

Gurpreet Singh had fired in the air with his revolver. However, it is a matter of

record that no weapon was recovered from said Dalip Singh, who had been found

innocent during investigation. Inquiry had been conducted by DW3, Gurmeet

Singh, AIG. Furthermore, PW12, Jaswant Singh SHO the Investigating Officer,

had stated in his cross examination that there was 16/17 persons present in the grain

market at the place of occurrence. They were interrogated by him and all of them

said that they heard the sound of only two fire shots and had not seen the

occurrence. PW12 further revealed that during investigation it came to light that

Dalip Singh was present at village Chuggatte Wala at the time of alleged

occurrence. Presence of Dalip Singh at village Chuggatte Wala was confirmed by

Baljit Singh, Bipan, Bandu, Jasbir Singh all Junior Engineers, Rajesh Kumar

Cashier, Baldev Singh Lineman, Gurmail Singh Clerk, Joginder Singh SSO and

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[13] 

Jarnail Singh ELM of Punjab State Electricity Board. All of them confirmed that

Dalip Singh was present at the grid of Chuggatte Wala from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

on 02.08.2011. Testimony of DW1, Ajaib Singh and DW2, Hans Raj who were

officials of PSPCL rule out the presence of Dalip Singh at the spot. These witnesses

have categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, Dalip Singh was present

on duty. Reference can also be made to Ex.DW3/A that is an application submitted

by one Darshana Rani wife of Pamma and Veena wife of Baggar the two other

accused who were named initially by eye witnesses but not summoned by Court to

face trial after dismissal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua him. It is

mentioned in this application (Ex.DW3/A) that on the date of occurrence Gurpreet

Singh was going to Ferozepur Cantt. on his jeep and on the way he had met Pamma

and Baggar who were going on foot and being acquainted with them he had given

them a lift, asking them to help him load fertilizer in his jeep and they would return

in 10-15 minutes. Gurpreet Singh had thereafter with his weapon killed some

person, but their husbands were innocent labourers and knew nothing about the

occurrence. This document also does not mention the presence of Dalip Singh.

PW1 and PW2 have admitted that 10-15 persons from both sides have joined for

inquiry and they too had been associated in the inquiry in which Dalip Singh was

exonerated. It is further to be noted that it is recorded in the Bed Head Ticket

(Ex.P14/F) that Lakhwinder Singh (PW1) disclosed to the doctor that Amrik Singh

had been shot twice by a man who got out of a jeep with a gun. This is a version

apparently disclosed immediately after the incidence.

20. In the given factual scenario, we do not find any merit in the

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[14] 

arguments raised by learned counsel for complainant that acquittal of Dalip Singh

is incorrect or illegal. Prosecution has indeed failed to prove its case against Dalip

Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Dalip Singh has, thus, been correctly acquitted of

the charges against him. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal filed by complainant

seeking setting aside of acquittal of Dalip Singh. It is pertinent to note at this stage

that acquittal of accused is not to be set aside lightly and that there have to be

strong, compelling and substantial reasons to set aside acquittal of the accused.

Simply because another view may be possible, cannot be a ground for reversing a

judgment of acquittal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Arulvelu v. State represented

by the Public Prosecutor, 2009(10) SCC 206 held that:-

“Unquestionably, the Appellate Court has power to review and re-

appreciate the entire evidence on record. The appellate court would

be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are

substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the trial

court is found to be perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner

where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position

crystallized by aforementioned judgments of this Court. The accused

is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed

this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court’s

acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. This

fundamental principle must be kept in view while dealing with the

judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court.”

21. Reference in this regard can also be made to judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in

State of Rajasthan versus Kistoora Ram, 2022(4) RCR

(Criminal) 324, wherein it is held that it is not permissible to interfere with finding

CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and a connected matter 

[15] 

of acquittal unless it is found that the view taken by Court is impossible or perverse.

It is a settled position of law that acquittal of an accused is not to be set aside only

if another view may be possible under the given facts and circumstances.

22. There is further no merit in the argument raised on behalf of learned

counsel for complainant for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused -

Gurpreet Singh. Apart from the fact that the present is not a case presenting rarest

of the rare, it is to be noted that complainant is not entitled to seek enhancement of

punishment awarded to the accused. No serious argument was addressed in regard

to grant of compensation. It is, however, directed that the amount of fine imposed

upon the appellant, be paid as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased on

realisation.

23. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, we do not find

any infirmity, illegality or perversity in impugned judgment of conviction dated

31.10.2017 and order of sentence dated 07.11.2017 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

24. Accordingly, with the abovesaid direction for release of the amount of

fine imposed upon the appellant to be paid as compensation to legal heirs of the

deceased, both the appeals i.e., CRA-D No.1105-DB of 2017 and CRA-AD No.88

of 2019 are dismissed being devoid of any merit.

( LISA GILL )

JUDGE

( ALOK JAIN )

May 3 , 2025. JUDGE  

‘om’ 

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No