Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998
Date of decision: 14.11.2008
Hardev Singh and others
......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
SABINA, J.
Appellant Hardev Singh @ Haiba, Gurdev Singh and
Kuldip Singh have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and
sentence vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 and
25.9.1998 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala.
Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 2
para 2 of its judgment reads as under:-
“On 21.7.1992, Hamira Singh son of Mehma Singh made
a statement before Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan
Singh, when the police party was proceeding from village
Sarala to Jameetgarh etc. in connection with patrol duty.
Hamira Singh met the police party near the culvert of
village Marrian. Hamira Singh stated that he was resident
of village Harpalpur and was illiterate. He was a truck
driver. Surjan Singh son of Isher Singh, who was his
maternal cousin (father’s elder brother’s son) got 75
Bighas of land from Harnam Kaur on the basis of a Will.
He got possession under the orders of the Court through
the revenue department about some months back. The
said land was in two portions. On that day at about 4.30
a.m., he, Surjan Singh, Gurmukh Singh son of Attar
Singh, resident of Dhangeri, Mohinder Singh son of Sher
Singh, resident of Naleena, Jaswant Singh son of Gurdial
Singh, resident of Mehmoodpur, Police Station Guhla,
Subheg Singh son of Kapur Singh, resident of Talheri,
Jagga Singh son of Mehar Singh, Gama son of Harnam
Singh, resident of Harpalpur and Mohinder Singh,
resident of Naleena, who was his brother-in-law, came on
Escort 37 tractor trolly from Harpalpur for ploughing the
land of Surjan Singh situated in village Loh Simbli. They
had also brought the seed of charri with them. Jaswant
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 3Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Mehmoodpur was
armed with his licenced gun. They reached in about one
hour near the drain of dirty water in the area of Loh
Simbli. They trolly was separated from the tractor.
Mohinder Singh started ploughing the land with the
tractor. They were throwing the seeds of charri in the
field. They ploughed about 3 kills of land. At about 7/7-
30 a.m. a group of persons came from the side of Loh
Simbli. When they came near, he recognised Balwant
Singh son of Waryam Singh, resident of Loh Simbli who
was empty handed, Gurdev Singh son of Jagir Singh,
resident of Loh Simbli was armed with a gandasi, Hardev
Singh @ Haiba son of Jagir Singh was armed with a 12
bore gun, Kesar Singh son of Jagir Singh, Jaswinder
Singh son of Kesar Singh, Karamjit Singh son of Kesar
Singh, Sukhjit Singh son of Hardev Singh and Kuldip
Singh son of Gudev Singh, all residents of Loh Simbli
were armed with dangs (sticks). Mohinder Singh son of
Gurdev Singh was armed with gandasi. Gurdev Singh
and Balwant Singh gave the lalkaras that they should
teach them a lesson for ploughing the land of a issueless
person. Nobody should escape from there. Hardev
Singh fired two gun shots from his 12 bore gun towards
Surjan Singh. Surjan Singh received the injuries on his
chest, on the left side of his abdomen and other parts of
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 4the body. Mohinder Singh, who was armed with a
gandasi, gave gandasi blows to Surjan Singh which hit
him on his right and left legs and on his left arm. As a
result, Surjan Singh fell down. Sukhjit Singh gave many
blows with his stick to Gurmukh Singh. Kuldip Singh gave
many blows with his stick to Mohinder Singh. Karamjit
Singh gave many blows with his stick to Jaswant Singh.
Jaswinder Singh gave many blows with his stick to
Subheg Singh. Kesar Singh gave many blows with his
stick to Jagga Singh successively. Gurdev Singh gave
the gandasi blows to Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh
received many injuries on his person and the blood
started coming out of the injuries. During the fight
Jaswant Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of
Mehmoodpur, who was armed with 12 bore gun, fired two
shots in self defence which hit Balwant Singh son of
Waryam Singh, resident of Loh Simbli. Kesar Singh and
his sons Jaswinder Singh and Karamjit Singh snatched
the 12 bore gun along with licence and papers from
Jaswant Singh. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh caused blows
with the gandasi. On the Escort 37 tractor and damaged
the tractor and the engine. After throwing the diesel on
the tyre of the trolly it was burnt. After the occurrence all
the accused ran away towards Loh Simbli along with 12
bore gun of Jaswant Singh. They raised alarm but
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 5nobody came to rescue them. Hardev Singh and other
accused with an intention to take possession of the land
caused to injuries to Surjan Singh and his relatives.”
On the basis of statement of complainant formal FIR
No.53 dated 21.7.1992 was registered by police of Police Station
Ghanaur.
Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh along with police
officials and Hamira Singh came to the place of occurrence. The
injured persons were removed to Civil Hospital, Rajpura for medical
treatment. Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh prepared the
rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The blood stained earth
was lifted from the spot. Two empty cartridges of 12 bore from the
spot were also taken in possession. Two cartridges and tractor trolly
were also taken in possession. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded.
Doctor O.P.Goel (PW-1) deposed that on 21.7.1992 at
about 11.30 a.m. he examined Balwant Singh and found following
injury on his person:-
“Multiple mall lacerated on left side of the chest and left
upper arm on back of chest. Margins were irregular and
black in colour. Kept under observation subject to X-ray
and operation notes of the surgeon. There was swelling
of eye lid on left side, there was bleeding from left ear.”
The said injury was a result of fire arm.
On the same day he examined Gurmukh Singh at 11.45
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 6
a.m. and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of
cheek and face. It was bone deep. The wound was
bleeding. It was kept under observation subject to X-
ray for evidence of injury to underlying bone.
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5cm x 1.00 cm on top of
right shoulder, x-ray was advised for evidence of
fracture of underlying bone.
3. Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm on front of right shoulder.
4. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm x 0.3 cm on the left
palm and encircling left thenar eminece, x-ray was
advised for evidence of fracture of underlying bone and
injury to nerves and vessels.
5. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 1.5 cm x 3.00 cm on left thigh
upper 1/3rd lateral aspect.
6. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.00 cm on left
parieto occipital region in front of external occipital
protuberance. It was bleeding. It was kept under
observation subject to x-ray.
7. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1cm x 1cm on front of left leg
lower 1/3rd. It was bleeding. Kept under observation
subject to x-ray.
On the next day at about 12.00 noon Gurmukh Singh was
again medico legally examined and another injury was found on his
person. The said injury was earlier missed as on the earlier day
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 7
many injured had been admitted in the hospital at the same time. The
said injury No.8 found on the person of Gumukh Singh was as
under:-
8. Multiple lacerated wounds on the back of upper half of
chest varying in size from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to
0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x0.2 cm. Margins were irregular and
some were blackened. Injuries were kept under
observation for evidence of foregoing body.
Injury No.8 was a result of fire arm. Remaining all the
injuries were simple in nature and were result of blunt weapon.
On 22.7.1992 he examined Gurnam Singh at 1.00 p.m.
and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on front of left leg
upper third.
2. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm between web space
between little and ring finger extending on Palmer and
dorsum aspect of hand. It was bleeding.
The said injuries were a result of sharp edged weapon
and were simple in nature.
On the same day he examined Mohinder Singh at 12.00
noon and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound on right part of forehead near the
outer end of right eye brow 2.5 cm x 1.00 cm x 1.00 cm.
X-ray was advised for evidence of x-ray of underlying
bone.
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 8
2. Swelling 10 cm x 10 cm on left fore arm middle x-ray
was advised for evidence of x-ray of underlying bone.
3. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right
leg lower 1/3rd. It was bleeding.
4. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm x 1cm on right little finger
Palmer aspect, x-ray was advised.
5. Complained of pain on dorsum of left foot in middle..
X-ray was advised for fracture of underlying bone.
6. Complained of pain in chest.
7. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.
The said injuries were a result of blunt weapon. Injuries
No. 2 and 4 were declared grievous in nature, whereas, the
remaining injuries were declared simple in nature.
On the same day at 12.15 a.m. he examined Jaswant
Singh and found following injuries on his person:-
1.Irregular lacerated wound on scalp 12 cm x 2 cm x bone
deep wound starting in midline of fore-head running
posteriorly and towards right frontal and parietal region. It
was bleeding. Advised x-ray for evidence of fracture of
underlying bone and injury to brain.
2. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right
part of scalp and parietal region starting in mid line of
skull running downwards and towards right parietal
region. It was bleeding. X-ray was advised for
evidence of fracture of underlying bone.
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 9
3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1cm x 1cm on back of right
fore arm in the middle third.
4. Swelling 3 cm in diameter on medical side of right
knee. X-ray was advised for evidence of fracture of
underlying bone.
5. Reddish blue contusion on front of right elbow and
right upper arm 8 cm x 4 cm.
6. Reddish contusion on front of right upper arm 8 cm x 4
cm.
7. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on back of right gluteal
region.
On 23.7.1992 at 12.00 noon injured Jaswant Singh was
again examined and the following injury was also found on his
person which was considered as injury No.8:-
“8.Multiple lacerated wounds on the back of chest, back
of upper arm left varying in size from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x
0.2 cm to 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x0.2 cm. Injury was kept under
observation for evidence of foregoing body or injury to
underlying lung and pleura”
All the injuries on his person were declared simple in
nature. Injury No.8 was a result of fire arm.
On the same day at 12.30 after noon he medico legally
examined Subegh Singh and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound on scalp, more so on right side 12 cm
x 3cm x 2.5 cm running antero, posteriorly on top of
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 10scalp. It was bleeding.
2. Swelling on left hand. More so on radial aspect X-ray
was advised for fracture of underlying bone.
3. Swelling on left elbow joint, more so on lateral aspect.
X-ray was advised for evidence of fracture of underlying
bone.
4. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left deltoid region.
All the injuries were result of blunt weapon. Injury No.1
was declared grievous in nature, whereas, remaining injuries were
declared simple in nature.
On the same day at 12.45 p.m. he examined Jagga Singh
and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left leg.
Lower 1/3rd outer aspect.
2. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on left part of
scalp, just above left ear. X-ray was advised for
evidence of fracture of underlying bone. The bone was
bleeding.
3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
All the injuries were declared simple in nature and were
result of blunt weapon.
After reaching A.P.Jain Hospital, Rajpura, Assistant Sub
Inspector Darshan Singh took in possession M.L.Rs of Gurdev
Singh, Mohinder Singh, Jaswant Singh, Subheg Singh, Jagga Singh,
Gurnam Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Mohinder Singh son of Sher
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 11
Singh. Surjan Singh was referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala.
After reaching Rajindera Hospital, he recorded the statement of
Surjan Singh. On 22.7.1992 injured Surjan Singh died in Rajindera
Hospital, Patiala. The inquest report with regard to his dead body
was prepared. Dead body of Surjan Singh was sent for postmortem
examination.
Dr.Deepak Walia (PW-2) conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of Surjan Singh on 22.7.1992 at 3.30
p.m. and found following injuries on his person:-
1. A stitched wound 20 cms long with 15 stitches on the
anterior surface of the trunk in the middle extending
from xiphistornum to umbilicus.
2. A stitched wound 6 cm long with four stitched in tact on
left side of abdomen 6 cm left of mid line and 10 cms
left and above of umbilicus.
3. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on left side of
chest 7 cm medical to left nipple at 9-0′ clock position.
Clotted blood was present.
4. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on left side of
chest 6 cm below left nipple of 6-0′ clock position.
5. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on right side of
chest 2 cm from right nipple at 2-0′ clock position.
Clotted blood was present.
6. A lacerated wound 3 cm in diameter on right side of
abdomen at right coastal margin 11 cm below right
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 12nipple at 5-0′ clock position.
7. A lacerated wound 4 mm on front surface of upper
1/3rd of left upper arm. Clotted blood was present.
8. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on anterior
surface of left fore-arm in its upper 1/3rd. Clotted blood
was present.
9. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter 5 cm below injury
No.10.
10. A stitched wound 4 cm long within 3 stitched on the
back of left thumb.
11. A lacerated wound 4 cm long on back of left little
finger within 3 stitched present underlying bone
fractured.
12. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on ant-surface
of left thigh in its upper third.
13. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on ant-surface
of right thigh.
14. An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the anterior surface
of right leg in its upper 1/3rd bone deep.
15. An incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on ant-surface of right
leg 12 cm below injury No.14, underlying bones tibia
fractured.
16. An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the anterior surface
of right leg lower one third.
17. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on upper 1/3rd of left
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 13leg bone deep.
18. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on middle 1/3rd of left
leg on its ant-surface bone deep.
19. An incised wound 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm on ant-surface of
left leg 6 cm below injury No.18.
20. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on right supra scapular
region muscle deep.
21. A stitched wound 3 cm long with 3 stitches on the
back of right middle finger of right hand.
All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and cause of
death was a result of multiple injuries suffered by the deceased
which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The accused were arrested and after completion of
investigation all the accused were sent up for trial.
Charge against the accused was framed under Sections
148, 302, 325, 323/149, 427,435 IPC. Charge was also framed
under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Act’) against accused Hardev Singh. Charge was also
framed under Section 382 IPC against accused Jaswinder Singh
and Karamjit Singh. Accused did not plead guilty to the charge and
claimed trial.
At the trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution
examined 17 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence
accused Hardev Singh, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
prayed as under:-
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 14
“I am innocent. I and my son Sh.Sukhjit Singh had no
concern with the land in dispute in July, 1992. My brother
Sh.Gurdev Singh and his sons Sh.Harminder Singh @
Mohinder Singh and Sh.Kuldip Singh along with my
brother Sh.Kesar Singh and his sons Sh.Jaswinder
Singh, Karamjit Singh and Sh.Jagjit Singh were in
possession of the land in dispute and they were in its
physical cultivating possession since long. Civil litigation
regarding land in dispute was going on between
Smt.Jangir Kaur w/o Sh.Mehma Singh and Smt.Kartar
Kaur w/o Sh.Ishar Singh since long. The complainant
party suspected that I was helping my brothers
Sh.Gurdev Singh and Kesar Singh and their sons in the
said litigation. I and my son Sh.Sukhjit Singh have been
falsely implicated in the case on that account.
I was working as Gunman in Allahabad Bank
at village Loh Simbli. My lincenced Gun was taken away
by the police from the said Bank and the same has been
falsely planted in the case. I was arrested by the police
on 22.7.1992, but my arrested was shown later on
according to the suitability of the police. I and my son
Sh.Sukhjit Singh are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the case.”
The other accused also took up the similar pleas when
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 15
In their defence accused examined Rajinder Kumar (DW-
1) and Navdeep Gupta (DW-2).
Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution version so
far as accused Hardev Singh @ Haiba, Gurdev Singh and Kuldip
Singh are concerned and convicted and sentenced them under
Sections 302/325/34 IPC. Accused Hardev Singh @ Haiba was also
convicted under Section 27 of the Act. The remaining accused were
acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present
appeal.
In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued
that the trial Court had erred in convicting and sentencing the
accused vide the impugned judgment and order. Accused were in
possession of the property in question. In fact, it was the
complainant party, who had come to the spot and had fired two
shots. Balwant Singh from the accused party had suffered injuries.
The complainant party had suffered injuries in the exercise of self
defence by the accused.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued
that six persons had suffered injuries from the complainant side and
one person had died. It was evident from Exhibit PW9/A that
possession of the land had been handed over to Surjan Singh in the
presence of the SHO Police Station Ghanaur, Patwari Halqa
Lohsimbli, Chowkidar Harpalpur by the Field Kanoongo Ghanaur.
Complainant party was cultivating the land in question on the alleged
day of occurrence, when the accused came to the spot armed with
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 16
deadly weapons and attacked the complainant party.
Present case rests on an eye witness account.
Case of the complainant party is that while they were
sowing seeds of charri, accused party armed with respective
weapons came to the spot and opened their attack. Hardev Singh
fired two shots, whereas, other accused armed with their respective
weapons inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party.
Case of the accused party on the other hand is that, in fact, they
were in possession of the suit property and had been attacked by the
complainant party.
Exhibit PW9/A is the material document as per which
possession of the land in question was handed over to the
complainant party in the presence of police on 13.3.1992. A perusal
of the same reveals that price of the standing crop was assessed
and it was ordered by the Field Kanoongo Ghanaur that Rs. 27,000/-
will be paid as compensation to Harminder Singh and others. In case
the compensation was not deposited then Harminder Singh and
others would be entitled to their share in the crop. However,
possession at the spot was delivered to Jagir Kaur and Kartar Kaur
through Surjan Singh. Munadi was effected through chowkidar of the
village with regard to possession and the possession was delivered
peacefully. From this it is evident that complainant party was in
possession of the property in question on the alleged day of
occurrence. The fact that compensation amount was not paid by the
complainant party regarding the standing crop does not lead to the
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 17
inference that the possession of the land remained with the accused
party as the same had been handed over to Jagir Kaur and Kartar
Kaur on 13.3.1992, whereas, the occurrence in this case had taken
place on 21.7.1992. Exhibit DGG is a copy of an application in
execution proceedings initiated on 7.11.1991 wherein it was prayed
that the amount of mesne profits as mentioned in the application be
recovered from the judgment debtors by attachment and sale of their
properties. It was also prayed that delivery of actual physical
possession of the land along with crop standing on it may be got
delivered to the decree holders. The said application is only signed
by the counsel for Jagir Kaur and others and is not signed by the
decree holders. Apparently, the said application was filed before the
standing crop had been harvested. This application might have been
filed by the counsel under misapprehension that the possession of
the land had not been given to the decree holders vide order dated
13.3.1992, whereas, in fact, possession had been given to the
decree holders vide order Exhibit PW9/A dated 13.3.1992 and only
compensation qua the standing crops had been assessed in favour
of Harminder Singh and others. The pendency of the execution
proceedings on the day of occurrence would also not lead to the
inference that the actual possession on the day of occurrence with
regard to the property in question was not with the complainant party.
Hence, we are not impressed with the argument raised by learned
counsel for the appellants that the accused were in possession of the
property in question.
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 18
Appellants had come to the spot armed with deadly
weapons on the day of occurrence and had inflicted injuries on the
person of complainant party. Appellant Hardev Singh was armed
with 12 bore gun, whereas, appellant Gurdev Singh was armed with
a gandasi and appellant Kuldip Singh was armed with a dang. Seven
persons suffered injuries from the complainant side and out of them
Surjan Singh succumbed to his injuries on 22.7.1992.
Appellant Gurdev Singh had allegedly inflicted injuries
with the gandasi on the person of Gurnam Singh. The trial Court
had erred in holding that Gurdev Singh had inflicted injuries on the
person of deceased Surjan Singh, whereas, as per the ocular
evidence Gurdev Singh had only inflicted injuries on the person of
Gurnam Singh. Injured Gurnam Singh was given up at the trial by the
learned public prosecutor as having been won over by the accused.
As such an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the
prosecution. As per the medical opinion injuries on the person of
Gurnam Singh were declared simple in nature. In these
circumstances, the presence of appellant Gurdev Singh at the spot is
doubtful and he is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against
him.
As per the ocular version appellant Hardev Singh had
fired two shots from his gun which had hit Surjan Singh on his chest,
abdomen and other parts of his body. Appellant Kuldip Singh gave
dang blows on the person of Mohinder Singh (PW-6). So far as both
these appellants are concerned, prosecution had been successful in
proving its case against them. The prosecution version against them
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 19
is supported by the ocular evidence which is duly corroborated by the
medical evidence. Mohinder Singh (PW-6) has duly proved the
injuries inflicted on his person by appellant Kuldip Singh. As per the
medical evidence the injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh (PW-
6) were a result of blunt weapon and two out of seven injuries
suffered by him were declared grievous in nature. Both the
appellants had come to the spot armed with their respective weapons
and had used them at the time of occurrence. This leads to the
inference that they had come to the spot sharing a common intention
to commit the alleged crime. The statements of the eye witnesses
with regard to the involvement of appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip
Singh inspire confidence. Presence of eye witness Mohinder Singh
cannot be doubted at the spot as he had suffered injuries in the
occurrence. In a case of an eye witness account motive more or
less loses its significance. There is no un-explained delay in lodging
the FIR. The occurrence had taken place at about 7/7.30 a.m. on
21.7.1992. It was natural for the eye witnesses to get the injured
treated first and, thereafter, lodge the FIR. The statement of the
complainant was recorded at 9.50 a.m. on 21.7.1992. Thus, there is
no unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR.
We have gone through the entire evidence on record and
are of the opinion that appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip Singh
were rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Judge vide
impugned judgment and order, whereas, appellant Gurdev Singh is
liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 20
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed qua appellant
Gurdev Singh and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
So far as appeal qua appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip Singh is
concerned, the same is dismissed and their conviction and sentence
as ordered by the trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order are
upheld.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
(JASBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
November 14, 2008
anita