Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Amrik Singh and another .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (2) Crl.A. No.585-DB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Mohinder Singh and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (3) Crl.A. No.603-DB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Makhan Singh .....APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (4) Crl.A. No.646-DB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Gurdial Singh and another .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -2- (5) Crl.A. No.1362-SB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Paramjit Singh and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (6) Crl.A. No.1388-SB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Baljinder Kaur and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (7) Crl.A. No.1314-SB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Shavinderjit Singh and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT (8) Crl.Revn. No.2410 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Ranjit Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Mohinder Singh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY --- Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -3- Present: Mr.R.S. Cheema,Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Pawan Girdhar and Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocates, for the appellants in Crl.Appeals No. 585-DB of 2004, 603-DB of 2004, 646-DB of 2004 and 1362-SB of 2004 (except appellant Sumittar Kaur in Crl.Appeal No.1362-SB of 2004). Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, for appellant Sumittar Kaur in Crl.Appeal No.1362-SB of 2004. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellants in Crl.Appeals No.572-DB of 2004 and 1388-SB of 2004. Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004, for the petitioner in Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004 and for the complainant in other cases. Mrs.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State in other cases. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals No.572-DB of
2004, 585-DB of 2004, 603-DB of 2004, 646-DB of 2004, 1362-SB of
2004, 1388-SB of 2004 as well as Criminal Revision No.2410 of 2004,
which have arisen from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 14.06.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala
in case FIR No.412 dated 3.5.2001 under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC
and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Sadar, Patiala. First six appeals have been filed by thirty accused, who have
been convicted for various offences, whereas Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -4-
has been filed by the complainant’s side. This judgment will also dispose of
Crl. Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 which has arisen from the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 14.6.2004 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala in cross-version, i.e., SC
No.58T/FTC/23.4.2004, which was initiated on the basis of the statement
made by Mohinder Singh (accused).
In this case two persons, namely, Amrik Singh and Vikramjit
Singh had died and two persons, namely, Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit
Singh, suffered fire-arm injuries from the complainant’s side; and two
persons, namely, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur suffered fire-arm
injuries from the accused side. Eight accused, namely, Amrik Singh son of
Gurdev Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of Amrik Singh (who have filed
Crl.Appeal No.572-DB of 2004), Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh son of
Banta Singh, Jaswinder Singh son of Chhota Singh (who have filed
Crl.Appeal No.585-DB of 2004), Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh (who
has filed Crl.Appeal No.603-DB of 2004), Gurdial Singh son of Jagat Singh
and Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh (who have filed Crl.Appeal
No.646-DB of 2004) have been convicted under Section 302 IPC for
committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh and sentenced
for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Harbans Kaur wife of
Mohinder Singh (who is one of the appellant in Crl.A.No.585-DB of 2004)
has been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC for
committing the murder of aforesaid two persons and sentenced for life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Out of the aforesaid nine accused,
three accused, namely, Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh and Balwinder Singh
have also been convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -5-
Act for attempt to murder of aforesaid two injured persons and using fire
arm, and sentenced for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and three years and
a fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, for such offences. Five accused, namely,
Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju, Jaswinder Singh, Makhan Singh and
Gurdail Singh have been convicted for the offences under Section 307 read
with Section 149 IPC for attempt to murder of aforesaid two persons and
sentenced for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The remaining twenty one
accused (who have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced for
three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-) have filed two separate appeals i.e.
Criminal Appeals No.1362-SB of 2004 and 1388-SB of 2004. One accused
Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch of the village has been acquitted.
Crl.Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 has been filed in the cross-
version case by Shavinderjit Singh, who has been convicted under Sections
307 and 148 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for seven
years with a fine of Rs.1000/-, three years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and three
years, respectively, for such offences; Ramandeep Singh, who has been
convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148
IPC and sentenced for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and three years
with a fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, for such offences and Zora Singh,
who has been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced for three
years with a fine of Rs.1000/-, for causing grievous injuries with intention
to cause death, fire-arm injuries to Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur.
The main case as well as the cross-version were tried separately
by the same Court and separate judgments were delivered on the same day.
Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004 has been filed by the
complainant Ranjit Singh against acquittal of Amarjit Kaur,Sarpanch and
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -6-
for convicting the other accused for the offences under Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC,
who have only been convicted under Section 148 IPC.
FACTS OF THE MAIN CASE:
As per the prosecution version, which is based on the statement
of Ranjit Singh (PW11), the alleged occurrence had taken place on 3.5.2001
at about 4.30/5.00 a.m. in village Chuharpur Kalan, Police Station Sadar,
Patiala. In his statement (Ex.PA), Ranjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh stated
that they were four brothers. He was eldest, younger to him was Jora Singh,
then Amrik Singh (deceased) and youngest was Pritam Singh, who had
expired long back. On 3.5.2001 at about 4.30/5.00 a.m. he along with his
brother Amrik Singh and his sons Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh
and nephews Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh were harvesting the
wheat crop sown by Amrik Singh in their land (which is claimed to be in
possession by the accused side being Pattedar of the Panchayat). Suddenly
from the village side a number of persons in the shape of mob armed with
weapons, consisting of Mohinder Singh, armed with gun, Binder Singh,
armed with gun, Gurdial Singh, armed with gun, Balwinder Singh @ Bindi,
armed with gun, Makhan Singh armed with gun, Raju armed with gun,
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda son of Chhota Singh armed with gun, Amrik
Singh son of Gurdev Singh armed with gun, Samitter Kaur armed with
pistol and Lalla and Nikku sons of Mohinder Singh, Harbans Kaur wife of
Mohinder Singh, Ranjit Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh son of
Menan Singh, Raja and Soni sons of Bhajan Singh, Raghu son of Kartar
Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch, wife of Makhan Singh, Amrik Singh son of
Gurdev Singh’s wife, Soni son of Charan Singh, Gurdev Kaur wife of
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -7-
Gurdial Singh, Ninder Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Rajinder Singh son of
Jaswinder Singh, Charno wife of Balwinder Singh @ Binda, Sharanjit Singh
son of Inderjit Singh, Vicky son of Inderjit Singh, Pammi daughter of
Charan Singh, Jagdish Singh @ Guddu son of Banta Singh Kalal, residents
of Chuharpur Kalan and Shinderpal son of Karta Ram, Shivji son of
Tarsem, Shamsher Singh son of Hazara Singh, residents of Chuharpur
Kalan armed with gandasi, kirpan, dangs came from the side of village by
raising lalkara and were saying that they should not be allowed to go and
they should be taught a lesson for harvesting the crop without their consent.
It was further stated that those persons with intention to kill them, started
firing at them. Before they realized anything, his brother Amrik Singh and
his son Vikramjit Singh fell down due to bullet injuries. When they were
trying to reach near them in order to take care of them and to save
themselves from the gun shots coming from the opposite side, his nephew
Shavinderjit Singh received a gun shot. In order to rescue themselves, they
took the shelter of combine by reaching there by means of rolling on the
earth. In the meanwhile, the driver of the combine in order to save himself
ran away by leaving the combine in started condition. It was further stated
that at the same time the above-said persons, who were armed with kirpans,
gandasies and guns reached near the combine, who with their respective
weapons attacked on Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, who were in
crumbled condition and all the persons gave injuries on their persons
blindly. Thereafter, those persons came towards them and inflicted injuries
on him and Shavinderjit Singh. In the meantime, when his nephews
Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh, who had kept concealed themselves
and on their raising noise loudly `Bachao-bachao’ all the accused fled away
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -8-
from the spot with their respective weapons while raising lalkaras that they
had succeeded in achieving their goal. When all the assailants had covered
sufficient distance from the place of occurrence, then he and Shavinderjit
Singh came from backside of combine in injured condition and saw that
Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh had succumbed to the gun shots
and other injuries received by them. In the meanwhile, his father and other
persons of the village came at the place of occurrence on hearing the noise.
His father and his nephew after arranging the vehicles took him and
Shavinderjit Singh to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for treatment. The dead
bodies of his brother Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh were lying
in the fields. He stated that all the aforesaid persons in conspiracy with each
other had killed Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh with gun shots. He stated
that the motive behind the occurrence is that his brother Amrik Singh was
having 2-1/2 killas of land adjoining the land of their village and was
cultivating the same for many years. Even girdawari of the said land was in
the name of Amrik Singh. Thus the assailant party in connivance with
Sarpanch of the village wanted to dispossess him from this land forcibly. On
the said date the above-said occurrence had taken place when Amrik Singh
was harvesting his crop. Therefore, action be taken against the said persons.
On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was
registered at 10 a.m. at Police Station Sadar, Patiala under Sections
302,307,148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
Special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate which was received at 2.40
p.m. on the same date. SHO Sewa Singh recorded the aforesaid statement in
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala after obtaining the opinion of the doctor
regarding fitness of injured Ranjit Singh.
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -9-
MEDICAL EVIDENCE :
On 3.5.2001 at 5.30 a.m., PW3-Dr.Harminder Singh, Medical
Officer, Blood Bank, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala had medico-legally
examined Ranjit Singh (complainant) and found the following injuries on
his person:-
“1. A T shape wound 5 x 4 cm incised wound on right fore-
head 1.5 cm below the right hair line with fresh bleeding.
X-ray was advised under surgeon’s observation.
2. A lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 cm at the base of the
nose was present with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised
under surgeon’s observation.
3. Patient complained of pain on fingers of right hand with
abrasions 1 cm x 1 cm at the distal end of and end of the
leg little finger of right hand on palmar aspects. Advised
X-ray under ortho surgeon observation.
4. 1 x 1 cm abrasion on dorsal aspect of at the distal end of
the middle finger of right hand.
5. 1 x 0.5 cm abrasion at the base of right little finger on
dorsal aspect.
6. 1 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of left
fore-arm 3 cm below the left elbow joint. Advised X-ray
under ortho surgeon’s observation.”
All the injuries were declared to be simple in nature. On the same day and at
the same time he had also medico-legally examined Shavinderjit Singh and
found the following injuries on his person:-
“1. 4 x 1 cm incised wound on the left parital aspect of scalp
11 cm from the left ear pinna with fresh bleedings. X-ray
was advised, under surgeon’s observation.
2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm penetrating wound with blackish margin
was present on the left cheek which was 3 cm anterior to
the tragus of the left ear. X-ray was advised under
surgeon’s observation.
3. 0.5 x 0.5 cm penetrating wound was present on the upper
end of the sternum with blackish margin and 3 x 5 cm
red contusion on the left chest 4 cm lateral to the sternum
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -10-was present. X-ray was advised under surgeon’s
observation.
4. 4 x 4 cm swelling on the dorsal aspect of right hand at
the base of right index and middle finger. X-ray was
advised under ortho surgeon’s observation.
5. 6 x 3 cm red contusion on posterior aspect of left fore-
arm 9 cm proximal the left wrist joint was present.”
Again all the injuries were found simple in nature. Copies of the MLRs of
the two injured have been placed on record as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4,
respectively.
On 3.5.2001 at about 2.00 p.m., PW14-Dr.O.P.Aggarwal,
Additional Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Government Medical
College, Patiala conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Amrik Singh,
aged 43-45 years. He found the following injuries on his body :
“1. There was lacerated wound 4 cm x 4 cm on the front of
left side of chest. 6 cm below the left nipple. The margin
was inverted, Abraded, irregular, Blackening, Tattooing
were present. Underneath ribs were fractured. The wound
entered the chest cavity injuring the left lung and heart.
Pallets were found embbed in the posterior wall in the
scapular area. Wad was found in the wound there was
grease collar around the wound was present. The chest
cavity contained clotted blood. (Entry wound)
2. Five lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm on the left side of upper
part of chest above the left nipple. The margins were
inverted. There was no blackening and no tattooing were
seen. Wounds entered in the chest cavity and small
pallets were found in the chest cavity (Entry wounds)
3. There was one small lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm on the
front of left arm. In the deltoid area, the margins were
inverted. There was no blackening and tattooing seen.
The wound entered into the deltoid muscles and making
an exit wound ¾ cm x ¾ cm on the back of left arm with
everted margins.
4. Incised wound 15 cm x 3 cm was present on the head,
fore-head, on the nose, underneath bones were cut, brain
was injured.
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -11-
5. There was incised wound 14 cm x 2 cm on the left side
of face and forehead and head underneath bones were
fractured.
6. There was incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of
forehead underneath bones were fractured.
7. There was incised wound 15 cm x 2 cm on the right side
of head and over the right ear, skull was fractured, brain
was injured and clotted blood was present in skull cavity.
8. There was incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the mouth,
cutting both the lips and mandible.
9. Incised wound 2 ½ cm x 1 cm was present on the right
side of forehead.”
In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries
No.4 to 9 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury on the abdomen
was with the blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to
haemorrhage shock, resulting from the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the
deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
On the same date at about 4.00 p.m., he also conducted post-mortem on the
dead body of Bikramjit Singh aged 22 years and noticed the following
injuries on his body :
“1. There was lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm on the left side
of lower part of chest. It was near the mid line. It was
near the sternum. The wound entered into a chest cavity
and abdomen. There were abrasions and grease collar
were seen around the margin of wound. The margins of
the wound were inverted, irregular. It was contact wound
entry. The Liver, heart and left lung were showing small
holes, pallets were removed from the heart and lung.
Wad was also found in the chest cavity.
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm was present on the back
side of abdomen. The margin of the wound was inverted,
ragged, torn, irregular and abraded collar was seen.
Wound entered into the abdomen. The wad with the
pallets were found in the abdomen cavity and in the
vertebrae. The spinal cord was injured.
3. There was lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the back of
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -12-right fore-arm. Half of the wound was having inverted
margin and lower half of the wound was having everted
margin. The muscle, the skin and vessels were missing in
the wound. There was no blackening and no tattooing
was seen around the wound.
4. There was lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm on the back of
left hand near the little and ring finger. The margin was
inverted, torn, ragged, irregular. The wound open end on
the palmar aspect of left hand making an exit wound 6
cm x 6 cm with everted margins.
5. There was incised wound 4 cm x 4 cm was present on the
right cheek.
6. There was incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm was present on the
right eye brow and underneath bone was cut.
7. There was incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm on the right side
of fore-head with fractured underneath bone.
8. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm was present on the left eye
brow with underneath bone cut.
9. Tip of right middle finger of right hand was missing,
margins of the wound was incised.
10. There were multiple contusions on the left arm, on the
left fore-arm and on the back of left hand.
11. There was incised wound on the back of left elbow
underneath bone was cut. Pallets were removed from the
Liver.”
In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries
No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury No.10
was caused with blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to
shock haemorrhage, resulting from injuries to the brain.
FACTS OF CROSS-VERSION :
Proceedings of cross-version were initiated on the basis of the
statement of Mohinder Singh (Ex.P1) recorded by SI Bhag Singh in
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala at 2.00 p.m. on 4.5.2001. In the said statement he
stated that on the intervening night of 2/3.5.2001, he was sleeping along
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -13-
with his wife Harbans Kaur on the roof of his house. At about 3.00 a.m.,
they heard a noise of working of the harvest combine machine in his fields.
He and his wife went to the fields on foot from their house. He saw that the
land which was taken by him on lease from the Gram Panchayat, in which
the wheat crop was sown by him, was being harvested by Amrik Singh,
Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh sons of Gurdial Singh, Vikramjit Singh,
Shavinderjit Singh, sons of Amrik Singh and Gurdial Singh, accompanied
by four/five other persons, with the help of combine. It was further stated
that since he was in possession of the said land and crop was sown by him,
he and his wife went to the fields to restrain the driver of the combine and
asked why they were harvesting their crop. In the meantime, Amrik Singh,
who was having a licensed gun, fired on him with the intention to kill him
which hit on his left leg. When his wife Harbans Kaur raised voice “Mardita
Mardita”, then Shavinderjit Singh gave a gun shot blow which hit on the left
upper arm of his wife. Then Gurdial Singh and his sons Zora Singh and
Ranjit Singh raised lalkara that they be not allowed to go scot-free. In the
meantime, he fell down on the ground and became unconscious and was got
admitted in the hospital. Amrik Singh and his family members forcibly
harvested his crop in connivance with each other, therefore, action be taken
against them.
In the police proceeding, it has been recorded that on 3.5.2001,
two injured, namely, Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur were
admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, but their statements could not be
recorded because they were not fit to make their statements. On 4.5.2001,
the above-said statement was recorded after obtaining the opinion of the
doctor about the fitness of Mohinder Singh to make the statement. On the
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -14-
basis of the said statement, a cross-version was registered against four
persons, namely, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Zora Singh and
Ranjit Singh under Sections 307,447,379,511,148,149 IPC and under
Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE :
On 3.5.2001 at about 5.30 a.m., PW3-Dr.Gian Singh,
Emergency Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala medico-legally
examined Mohinder Singh aged 55 years and found the following injuries
on his person:-
“1. 3 x 3 cm lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of left
knee joint with inverted margins. The collar of the
wound was present. Advised X-ray and surgical opinion.
Fresh bleeding was present.
2. 6 x 5 cm lacerated wound of left popletial fossa with
inverted margins which communicated injury No.1
(through and through) under lying soft tissues were
visible. X-ray and surgical opinion was advised.
3. Complained of pain on left abdomen. Advised X-ray.”
Injuries No.1 and 2 were opined to have been caused by fire-arm while
injury No.3 by blunt weapon. On the same date and the same time he also
medico-legally examined Harbans Kaur aged 55 years and found the
following two injuries on her person:-
“1. 6 x 3 cm lacerated wound on lateral aspect of left arm in
its middle. Collar of the wound was present with
blackish margin. Proving not done. Fresh bleeding was
present. Advised X-ray and surgical opinion.
2. .5 x .5 cm penetrating wound with blackish margin on
lateral aspect of left index finger at the base. Advised X-
ray.”
Injuries No.1 and 2 were subject to x-ray and surgical opinion. In his
opinion, the probable time of duration was within six hours. The weapon
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -15-
used for these injuries was fire-arm.
POLICE INVESTIGATION :
In the main case during investigation the blood stained earth
from near the dead-bodies of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh were taken
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P26 and sent for analysis. Two live
cartridges and fourteen empty cartridges, which were inscribed with the
mark KF of 12 bore and one lid plastic of red colour were also taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.P27. Two live cartridges and fourteen
empty cartridges, which were inscribed with the mark KF of 12 bore and
one lid plastic of red colour were also taken into possession vide recovery
memo Ex.P28. One combine harvester and tractor-trolley along with its
engine were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P29. One
kirpan along with its cover, one toka, one gandasa, one dang, one iron pipe
and one stick were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P30.
From the hospital, the clothes of deceased Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh
in two parcels duly sealed by the doctor were also taken into possession
vide recovery memo Ex.P31. Vide said recovery memo, two plastic
containers containing pallets and lid were also taken into possession.
During the investigation, the accused were arrested. From
accused Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan, on the basis of his disclosure statement
(Ex.P33), one dang was recovered from a room of his residential house vide
recovery memo Ex.P37. From accused Balwinder Singh @ Bindi, on the
basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.P34), a .12 bore DBBL gun along with
its licence was recovered from his residential house vide recovery memo
Ex.P39. From accused Narinder Singh @ Ninder, on the basis of his
disclosure statement (Ex.P35), one tangli was recovered from a room of his
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -16-
house vide recovery memo Ex.P38. From accused Gurdial Singh, one spade
of the size of 3 ¼ ft. after taking it out with his own hand, from the cattle
shed in his house, was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P43. From
accused Binder Singh, a 12 bore DBBL gun along with its licence was got
recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P44. On 29.6.2001, accused Mohinder
Singh, who was admitted in the hospital, was arrested after his discharge
from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. During interrogation, he had stated that a
gun was lying in his house. On his statement, one DBBL gun along with its
licence lying in his house was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.P45. During investigation, Shavinderjit Singh was also arrested in cross-
version case and on his disclosure statement, a .315 bore rifle was got
recovered from the almirah in a room of his house vide recovery memo
Ex.P9. During investigation, the documents regarding possession of the
parties on the disputed land were also taken into possession and the
statements of various persons were recorded.
After the investigation, the challan was filed only against
twelve accused and initially charges were framed against them, but
subsequently after examination of some prosecution witnesses, on an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., other nineteen accused were
summoned to face the trial. Charges were also framed against them to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In the cross-version, on 5.12.2001, accused Gobind Singh,
Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh were arrested. Gurdial Singh accused
produced the licence of .315 bore rifle, which was taken into possession
vide recovery memo Ex.P11. After investigation, the challan was filed
against Shavinderjit Singh, Ramanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh. Thereafter,
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -17-
Zora Singh, Gobind Singh and Gurdial Singh were summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charges were also framed against them. During the
pendency of the case, Gobind Singh and Gurdial Singh had died and Ranjit
Singh had become medically unfit to depose during the trial.
EVIDENCE LED IN BOTH THE CASES :
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16
witnesses in the main case out of which PW11-Ranjit Singh, injured, PW12-
Shavinderjit Singh, injured and PW13-Ramandeep Singh, who was present
at the time of the alleged occurrence, though not injured, PW14-Dr.
O.P.Aggarwal, PW15-Inspector Sewa Singh and PW16-Bhupinderjit Singh
Virk are the material witnesses, who supported the prosecution version. In
cross-version, total 12 prosecution witnesses were examined, including
PW1-Mohinder Singh, PW3-Dr.Gian Singh, PW4-Ashok Kumar, PW5-
Harbans Kaur (injured), PW7-Charanjot Singh Walia, PW8-Dr.Gurinder
Singh Mann, PW9-Bhupinderjit Singh Virk and PW10-Bhag Singh are the
relevant witnesses, who supported the cross-version given by Mohinder
Singh.
The accused in the main case in their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded the cross-
version as their defence. In defence, the accused examined DW1-Dr.Ruby
Oberoi, who conducted x-ray, DW2-Dr.GianSingh, who medico-legally
examined Mohinder Singh, DW3-Dr.Gurinder Singh Mann, in order to
prove the bed head tickets of Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur, and DW4-
Mohinder Singh.
In the cross-version, accused Shavinderjit Singh in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that he is innocent and was
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -18-
falsely implicated. He stated that his cousin Ramandeep Singh, uncles
Ranjit Singh and Zora Singh are also innocent and falsely implicated. All
the accused gave the version of the main case as their defence and stated
that they had suffered fire-arm injuries and other injuries by deadly weapons
caused by Mohinder Singh and other accused in the main case. In defence,
they have examined DW1-Satish Grover, GA to Registrar, Punjab and
Haryana High Court in order to prove that Ranjit Singh filed
Crl.Misc.petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which the order dated
17.1.2002 was passed directing Sewa Singh and others not to investigate in
the cross-version. DW2-Jang Singh, SSO, Central Telegraph Office, Patiala,
in order to prove that a telegram was sent to higher officials that the accused
party was interfering in their peaceful possessio with the help of police and
they are preventing them to cut their crop. DW3-Dr.O.P.Aggarwal, who
conducted post-mortem of the dead-bodies of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit
Singh. DW4-Dr.Harminder Singh, EMO, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, who
medico-legally examined Ranjit Singh and also examined Shavinderjit
Singh on 3.5.2001. DW5-Ashok Kumar, Clerk, DTO Office, Patiala, who
deposed that the owner of Tata Indica Car is Mohinder Singh and DW6-
Shavinder Singh.
MOTIVE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME :
The dispute between the parties was with regard to the land
measuring 22 bighas 18 biswas which was belonging to the Gram Panchayat
being Shamlat Deh. Gurdial Singh and his family (complainant party)
claimed that they were in possession of the said land for the last many years
and even before the year 1950. Therefore, the said land does not vest in the
Gram Panchayat and they have become its owners. It is their case that on
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -19-
3.5.2001 at about 4.30/5.00 a.m., when they were harvesting the wheat crop,
the accused came with deadly weapons and committed the alleged crime.
On the other hand, Mohinder Singh (accused side) claimed that the said land
was a Shamlat Deh and belong to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat
auctioned the said land on 20.6.2000 and in the said auction he had taken
the same on lease, and after payment of the lease amount he was put in
possession of the same. Thereafter, he had sown one-two crops and when
the last crop was ripe for cultivation, the complainant party illegally and
without any authority came to the said land at 3.00 a.m. on 3.5.2001 with
combine harvester and when he opposed, then they caused injuries to them
by fire arms.
In this case certain documents have been produced on record by
the prosecution as well as defence in order to establish respective
possession of the parties. From accused side, the proceedings of the auction
conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 20.6.2000 have been placed on record
which was signed by Amrik Singh deceased as one of the participant in
auction. The extract of lease register which indicates that Mohinder Singh
was the highest bidder whose bid was accepted. The resolution of the Gram
Panchayat dated 20.4.2001 where the Gram Panchayat resolved that the land
measuring 22 bighas 15 biswas which was given on lease to Mohinder
Singh for the year 2000-01 on which he had sown the wheat crop, he be
permitted to cut his crop and Amrik Singh, who was unnecessarily
interfering must be restrained from harvesting the wheat crop and in this
regard a request was made to the police for help and for deputing Duty
Magistrate to get the crop harvested by Mohinder Singh. A copy of
Pattanama is in favour of Mohinder Singh. Further it has also been brought
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -20-
on record that the Gram Panchayat filed an application for eviction against
Gurdial Singh under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 and thereafter Gurdial Singh filed a title suit under
the said Act and in that suit the order of status-quo was passed. Copies of
the Jamabandi as well as the girdawari regarding the said land have also
been produced by the prosecution in which Gurdial Singh was recorded in
possession of the land. Initially, the suit under Section 11 of the said Act
was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 18.2.2003, however, in that
suit a finding was recorded that the possession of Gurdial Singh on the
disputed land is not since 1950, but from 8-9 years. It has been stated by the
learned counsel for the complainant that the said order of the Collector was
set aside by this Court in which a finding has been recorded that Gurdial
Singh was in possession of the suit land before 1950 and after recording the
said finding the matter has been remanded.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that
in this case proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated prior to
the date of occurrence. Finally on 27.12.2004, in those proceedings
Mohinder Singh was found to be in possession of the suit land as a lessee of
the Gram Panchayat on the date of initiation of those proceedings.
It is pertinent to mention that accused Binder Singh son of
Banta Singh has expired during the pendency of Crl.Appeal No.585-DB of
2004.
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT :
The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties,
came to the conclusion that prima-facie Gurdial Singh was in cultivating
possession of the disputed land. Further, while relying upon the statements
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -21-
of PW12-Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh and other
connected evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the
conclusion that the alleged incident had occurred in two parts. In the first
part, twenty one accused, who were not armed with any fire-arm, had
participated, out of them, one accused, namely, Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch was
having the right of private defence to protect the property of the Gram
Panchayat and the remaining accused committed the offence of rioting.
Therefore, they were convicted under Section 148 IPC. As far as nine
accused are concerned, who were armed with fire-arms, out of them, eight
accused, namely, Mohinder Singh son of Banta Singh, Binder Singh son of
Banta, Gurdial Singh son of Jagat Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial
Singh, Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of
Amrik Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda son of Chotta Singh and Amrik
Singh son of Gurdev Singh were convicted under Section 302 IPC for
committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh, whereas
accused Samittar Kaur, whose alleged pistol was not recovered and did not
cause any fatal injury, was convicted under Section 148 IPC and not under
Section 302 IPC. Accused Harbans Kaur, who admittedly went along with
her husband, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. Accused Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh and Balwinder
Singh, who were armed with fire-arms, were convicted under Section 307
IPC and accused Gurdial Singh, Makhan Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju,
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda and Amrik Singh were convicted under
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
In the cross case, the trial Court, after recording the finding that
though the accused party was in possession of the land in dispute, which
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -22-
belonged to the Gram Panchayat, but they were not justified in using fire-
arms and causing fire-arm injuries to the injured, convicted Shavinderjit
Singh under Section 307 IPC and his co-accused Ramandeep Singh under
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Zora Singh, who was initially found
innocent by the police and was later on summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C., was convicted under Section 148 IPC. Co-accused Ranjit Singh
was acquitted while giving him the benefit of doubt. So far as the other
offences under Sections 379, 447 read with Section 149 were concerned, the
same were held to be not made out. Accused Shavinderjit Singh was also
convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
ARGUMENTS :
Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the instant case
is a case of massive exaggeration. The complainant while intimating the
prosecution version has falsely implicated thirty-one persons of the village,
including its Sarpanch. The complainant and the alleged eye-witnesses of
the occurrence have attributed nine fire-arms to nine accused and various
other weapons to the other accused, though during the investigation only
three fire-arms and few other arms, i.e., dang, gandasa and toka were
recovered vide recovery memos Ex.P39, Ex.P45, Ex.P9 and Ex.P30. It was
further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses levelled omnibus
allegations against the accused. No specific role to each of the accused was
pointed out. It is further argued that for the complainant’s side, deceased
Amrik Singh received three fire-arm injuries and six other injuries out of
which one was from sharp-edged weapon and five were from blunt weapon,
whereas deceased Vikramjit Singh got four fire-arm injuries and seven other
injuries out of which six were from sharp-edged weapon and one was from
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -23-
blunt weapon. The other two witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11) and
Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) received six and five injuries, respectively, from
the sharp-edged and blunt weapons. They did not receive any fire-arm
injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution version is a
concocted version in which thirty-one persons have been falsely implicated
taking benefit of the delay in registration of the FIR. Learned counsel
submitted that the alleged incident had taken place at 3.00 a.m. on 3.5.2001
whereas the statement of PW11-Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and
formal FIR was registered at 10.00 a.m. He submitted that as per the
statement of PW13-Ramandeep Singh, the police came at the occurrence at
8.00 a.m., but the statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and
during this period the prosecution version was concocted. Learned counsel
further submitted that the possession of the land in question was with
Mohinder Singh as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat and he had sown the
wheat crop, and Gurdial Singh and others were not legally justified to cut
the crop from the land in question. It is further argued that all the three
alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh and
Ramandeep Singh are not trustworthy as they belong to one family. PW12-
Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh made major improvements
in their version while deposing in the court. These witnesses initially did not
attribute individual weapon to each of the accused but in the court these
witnesses gave entirely different version with regard to holding of the
weapons by the accused. Learned counsel further argued that both the
witnesses in their statements had stated that Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit
Singh received fire-arm injuries, but as per the medical evidence these two
witnesses have not received any fire-arm injuries as all the injuries on their
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -24-
person are from sharp or blunt weapons. This fact also indicates that these
witnesses have not correctly and truly deposed in the court. Therefore, their
statements are not reliable.
Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in this
case all the material witnesses belong to one family and in the facts and
circumstances of this case, their testimony is not credible. Learned counsel
submitted that undisputedly at the time of the alleged occurrence, the owner
of the combine and four-five other persons were present, but neither the
prosecution during investigation had associated them nor examined any one
of them as witnesses in the court in support of the prosecution version.
Therefore, non-examination of the independent witnesses creates a doubt in
the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the prosecution has not explained the fire arm injuries
received by Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur and has suppressed
the real genesis of the alleged occurrence.
Learned counsel further argued that as far as twenty one
accused are concerned (who have filed Crl.Appeals No.1362-SB of 2004
and 1388-SB of 2004), the trial Court has wrongly convicted them under
Section 148 IPC and sentenced for three years for the offence of rioting
being armed with deadly weapons while considering them as members of
unlawful assembly, particularly when they did not cause any injury to any
person and no weapon whatsoever was recovered from any of them.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in
cross-case the accused have fully established that the alleged occurrence
had started at 3.00 a.m. when Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur
went to the fields and objected to the harvesting of crop by the
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -25-
complainant’s side and at that time deceased Amrik Singh and his son
Shavinderjit Singh caused fire arm injuries to them. On the basis of the
evidence led in the cross-case, the trial Court, after proving the guilt against
accused Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh, has
convicted them. This fact itself demolishes the prosecution version in the
main case.
On the other hand, Shri Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the accused side was
the aggressor as complainant’s side was in lawful possession of the land and
they were legally cutting the crop sown by them when the alleged
occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel submitted that the cross-
version given by the accused was totally false and concocted and the same
was got registered in connivance with the police subsequently after
registration of the main case, in order to take defence in the main case. He
further submitted that at 3.00 a.m. no occurrence had taken place and no
injury was caused by Amrik Singh and his son Shavinderjit Singh to
Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur. Rather, they themselves
received the injuries at the time of the occurrence which had taken place at
4.30 a.m. when nine persons were using the fire arms. He further submitted
that all the thirty one persons had come at the place of occurrence in the
shape of unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with a common object to
cause fatal injuries to the complainant’s side in order to prevent them from
cutting the wheat crop and dispossessing them from the land in question.
Therefore, all the appellants were liable to be convicted for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the trial Court has
committed grave illegality while acquitting twenty one accused for the said
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -26-
offence and only convicting them for a lesser offence under Section 148
IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of the three prosecution
witnesses, i.e., Ranjit Singh (PW11), Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) and
Ramandeep Singh (PW13), who are the injured witnesses, cannot be
discarded only on the ground that they are related witnesses or on the
ground that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the accused.
Learned counsel further submitted that the three accused,
namely, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh have been
wrongly convicted under Section 307 IPC. Actually, they did not commit
any offence.
DECISION IN THE MAIN CASE:
From the medical evidence available on the record, it has been
proved that two persons, namely, Amrik Singh son of Gurdial Singh and
Vikramjit Singh had died on 3.5.2001 due to haemorrhage shock, resulting
from gun shot and other injuries suffered by them. During post-mortem,
nine injuries were found on the body of deceased Amrik Singh, out of
which, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire arm whereas injuries No.4 to
9 by sharp edged and blunt weapons. On the body of deceased Vikramjit
Singh, 11 injuries were found, out of which, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused
with fire arm whereas injuries No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused by sharp
edged weapon and injury No.10 was caused by blunt weapon. Two persons,
namely, Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh were also medico-legally
examined on 3.5.2001 at 5.30 a.m. by Dr. Harminder Singh (PW3) and he
found six injuries which were declared simple in nature on the person of
Ranjit Singh and five injuries, which were declared simple in nature on the
person of Shavinderjit Singh. None of the injuries of these two injured was
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -27-
from fire arms. The injuries on their bodies were either by sharp edged or
blunt weapon. It has also been proved that on the same date at 5.30 a.m.,
Dr.Gian Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala
medico-legally examined Mohinder Singh (accused) and Harbans Kaur
(accused) and on their person two gun shot injuries each were found. As per
the opinion of the doctor, the probable time of those injuries was within six
hours.Thus, it is clear that two persons from the complainant’s side and two
persons from accused side were admitted in the hospital in injured condition
at the same time and were medico-legally examined, and the post mortem
examination of two dead persons was conducted on that date and as per the
opinion of the doctor, they had received injuries by fire arm, sharp edged
and blunt weapons.
Now it is to be seen how, where and by whom those injuries
were caused to them. In this regard, both the parties have given different
version. According to the complainant Ranjit Singh (injured), the
occurrence had taken place at 4.30 a.m. when he, deceased Amrik Singh and
his son Vikramjit Singh (deceased), Shavinderjit Singh (injured) and
nephews Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh were harvesting the wheat
crop sown by them in the field in question, with the help of combine
harvester. According to him, at that time all the thirty one accused armed
with deadly weapons suddenly came there and caused death of Amrik Singh
and his son Vikramjit Singh by using the fire arms and other deadly
weapons and also caused injuries to him (Ranjit Singh) and Shavinderjit
Singh with their respective weapons with motive not to permit them in
cutting the crop and forcibly dispossess them from the land in question. On
the other hand, accused Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur stated
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -28-
that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 3.00 a.m. on the same date.
According to them, when at 3.00 a.m. they had heard the noise of working
of the harvest combine machine on the land, which they had taken on lease
from the Gram Panchayat, they went to the spot and saw that Amrik Singh,
Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh and Gurdial
Singh, accompanied by four/five other persons, were harvesting the crop
with the help of combine. When they objected to the cutting of the crop by
them, Amrik Singh and Shavinderjit Singh, who were armed with gun, fired
at them with intention to kill them. On receiving the gun shot injuries, they
fell down and became unconscious.
Thus, it appears that neither the complainant’s side nor the
accused side have given any version how the other side had received
injuries. We are of the opinion that both the sides have not stated the true
facts about the manner in which the occurrence had actually taken place in
their respective version. The witnesses examined by both the sides in their
respective cases have suppressed the true facts about the manner in which
the occurrence had actually taken place. From various documents available
on the record regarding the land in question, one thing is clear that there
was a dispute between both the parties about the ownership and possession
of the said land. The complainant claimed this land being owned by them on
the basis of their long possession, and on the other hand the accused side
claimed to be in possession of this land being lessee of the Gram Panchayat.
According to them, the land is Shamlat Deh which vests in the Gram
Panchayat, and was leased out to them by the Gram Panchayat in a public
auction. Some of the documents available on the record show the
complainant’s side in possession of the suit land, and some other documents
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -29-
show that the land was belonging to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram
Panchayat had leased out the same for cultivation to Mohinder Singh in a
public auction. Even before the date of occurrence, the land was attached in
a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which later on finally decided on
27.12.2004. However, on the record there are certain orders vide which the
order of status-quo was passed with regard to the possession of the suit land.
But the fact remains that at the time of occurrence, there was serious dispute
about the possession of this land between both the parties.
Surprisingly, in this case neither the complainant nor the
accused have taken the plea of private defence against the accusations
levelled against them. Both the parties have given their independent version.
After going through the statements of PW11-Ranjit Singh,
PW12-Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh (though not injured
but was present at the time of the alleged occurrence), we are of the opinion
that they have given the exaggerated version of the whole occurrence. In
their version, they have implicated 31 persons, who according to them came
at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons, out of which, nine persons
were armed with pistol and guns. Their statements are contrary to the
medical evidence. According to them, Shavinderjit Singh was also caused
fire arm injuries by the accused but in the medical examination of
Shavinderjit Singh, no fire arm injury was found on his person. The trial
Court has also not totally believed their version. Similarly, Mohinder Singh
and Harbans Kaur stated that they had received the gun shot injuries at 3.00
a.m. when they objected to the complainant party to harvest the crop sown
by them on the land taken by them on lease and thereafter they became
unconscious. But he has not made clear how from the complainant’s side
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -30-
two persons have died and two got injured. Thus, we are of the opinion that
both the parties have embellished the actual occurrence by making false
embroideries to it, and there are discrepancies in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. We are also not in a position to totally disbelieve
either the prosecution version or the defence version. In such facts and
circumstances, a duty is cast on the Court to separate the chaff from the
grain in order to reach the truth. Though the instant case may be baffling,
but it cannot be said that it is so confusing and conflicting that the process
of separating the chaff from the grain cannot be reasonably carried out.
Keeping in view this principle, we have carefully examined the evidence led
by the prosecution as well as the defence and have come to the conclusion
that the alleged occurrence had started on 3.5.2001 at 3.00 a.m. when
Amrik Singh, Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh
and Gurdial Singh, accompanied by four/five other persons, were harvesting
the crop with the help of combine in the field. At that time, Mohinder Singh
and Harbans Kaur appeared to have come on the scene of occurrence. They
had objected to the harvesting of crop and in that altercation deceased
Amrik Singh and Shavinderjit Singh fired shots at them from their guns. In
this case, two guns have been recovered from the complainant’s side. In our
opinion, at that time Mohinder Singh was not armed with any weapon.
Therefore, it cannot be said that Amrik Singh deceased and Shavinderjit
Singh used fire arms in their self defence. Immediately after the said
occurrence, accused Amrik Singh son of Gurdev Singh, his son Rajinder
Singh @ Raju, Binder Singh son of Banta Singh, Jaswant Singh, Makhan
Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh appeared to have come on the
scene with deadly weapons and caused injuries to deceased Amrik Singh
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -31-
and Vikramjit Singh without any sudden provocation. Further, we are of the
opinion that all the eight persons were not armed with guns as stated by the
prosecution witnesses. The other accused appeared to have been armed with
sharp edged and blunt weapons like Kulhari, gandasis and lathis. In the
subsequent occurrence only seven persons had participated, who caused
injuries to the deceased as well as two injured persons. Mohinder Singh and
his wife Harbans Kaur were already lying injured at the spot. We are of the
opinion that all the aforesaid seven persons were having no right of private
defence and they were not justified to cause fire arm injuries to
complainant’s side while seeing them harvesting the wheat crop from the
field with the help of combine. Thus, they have committed the alleged
crime. Rest of the twenty one persons came on the scene later on without
any arms and object and by making the exaggerated version the complainant
as well as two other eye-witnesses have named them as members of
unlawful assembly, who came on the scene with deadly weapons and with a
common object to commit the alleged crime. During the investigation, no
weapon was recovered from these twenty one persons. Thus, in our opinion,
the omnibus allegations levelled by prosecution witnesses Ranjit Singh,
Shavinderjit Singh and Ramandeep Singh that all the thirty one accused
with deadly weapons, out of which nine were armed with gun and pistol,
participated in the occurrence and caused injuries to the deceased and
injured are highly improbable and difficult to accept. Looking to the damage
caused to either side, it cannot be believed that thirty one persons had
participated in the alleged occurrence in the manner as stated by these
witnesses.
Immediately after the occurrence when the police went to the
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -32-
spot only one Kirpan with its cover, one toka, one gandasa, one dang and
one iron pipe and one stick were taken into possession by PW15-Sewa
Singh, SHO, P.S.Sadar, Patiala in presence of SI Bhag Singh and Gobind
Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P30. Further during the investigation, on the
disclosure statement made by accused Narinder Singh @ Ninder, one tangli
was recovered from his house vide recovery memo Ex.P38 and from
accused Gurdial Singh, one spade was recovered from the cattle shed of his
house vide recovery memo Ex.P43. These recoveries further prove the
exaggeration made by the three witnesses about the number of persons who
participated in the occurrence.
In this region, riots resulting in serious injuries or even death
are of frequent occurrence. A large number of persons is generally involved
and the evidence is often entirely of a partisan character. There is great
danger of innocent persons being implicated along with the guilty, owing to
the tendency of the parties in such cases to try to implicate falsely as many
of their enemies as they can. Therefore, in such cases the Court is required
to be careful while evaluating and analysing the prosecution as well as the
defence witnesses/evidence.
In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated
the version and appeared to have implicated all the family members and
close relatives of Mohinder Singh. When initially the FIR was registered, no
specific arm was attributed to any particular person and only omnibus
allegations were levelled, but while appearing in the court, each of the
accused has been attributed a weapon. Ranjit Singh (complainant) in his
statement before the police, on the basis of which the formal FIR was
registered, levelled omnibus allegations regarding firing against the accused
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -33-
armed with fire arms. According to him, they fired shots hitting Amrik
Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh. Regarding other accused,
who were armed with other weapons, he did not attribute any specific
weapon or role to anyone. In the court while appearing as PW11, Ranjit
Singh improved his version and attributed specific weapon to each of the
accused. He improved his version to the effect that he along with Amrik
Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh received gun shot injuries,
whereas as per the medical evidence neither Shavinderjit Singh nor Ranjit
Singh suffered any gun shot injuries. Further, Shavinderjit Singh while
appearing in the Court as PW12 as injured eye-witness, stated that
Mohinder Singh and Binder Singh gave rifle shots on the heart of deceased
Amrik Singh and Gurdial Singh gave rifle shot on the back of Vikramjit
Singh. This witness has attributed specific injuries to both the deceased and
injured by all the eight accused, though no such attribution was made in the
initial statement before the police. Thus, in our opinion, out of nine persons
initially named, who came on the spot with fire arm, only three persons
were having the arms and the rest appear to have been armed with other
weapons. Out of them, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were already
present at the time of occurrence and they were lying unconscious due to the
fire arm injuries received by them. In our opinion, twenty one persons from
whom no arm was recovered, did not cause any injury either to the deceased
or the injured or any person. This finding has also been recorded by the trial
Court. But all these persons have been punished under Section 148 IPC
after coming to the conclusion that they were the members of the unlawful
assembly and after coming on the scene when they saw that the other side
was having the arms, they had gone from the spot without using any arm
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -34-
and causing injury to any person. In our opinion, all these twenty one
persons did not come on the place of occurrence collectively as an unlawful
assembly with an object to cause injuries to the complainant’s side. Initially
in this case the police filed challan against twelve persons, including eight
persons mentioned above and four other ladies who have been convicted by
the trial Court under Section 148 IPC, rest of the accused, i.e. eighteen in
numbers, were found innocent, but merely on the statement of three
witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11), Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) and
Ramandeep Singh (PW13), nineteen more accused were summoned, who
also faced the trial and were convicted only under Section 148 IPC. In our
opinion, all the three prosecution witnesses have not correctly stated before
the Court and while making exaggeration implicated those persons who had
actually not participated in the alleged occurrence as members of unlawful
assembly.
A charge of rioting with deadly weapons pre-supposes the
existence of `an unlawful assembly’ with a common object as defined in
Section 141 of IPC. No charge of rioting can be sustained against any
person unless it is proved that he was a member of such `an unlawful
assembly’, and that one or more members of the assembly used force or
violence in prosecution of its common object. In the present case, we are of
the opinion that twenty one accused, who have been convicted under
Section 148 IPC, were not the members of unlawful assembly constituted by
seven persons, excluding Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur, with a
common object to cause injuries to the complainant’s side, who were
cultivating the field. Therefore, their conviction under Section 148 IPC is
not sustainable.
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -35-
In view of the above, the conviction of accused Amrik Singh
son of Gurdev Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju, Jaswinder Singh son of
Chhota Singh, Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Gurdial Singh son of
Jagat Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh under Section 302
IPC for committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh and
sentencing them for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each are hereby upheld.
Further, the conviction of accused Balwinder Singh under Section 307 IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Amrik Singh, Rajinder @ Raju,
Jaswinder Singh, Makhan Singh and Gurdial Singh under Section 307 read
with Section 149 IPC is upheld. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The conviction of accused Mohinder Singh under Sections 302 and 307 IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Harbans Kaur under Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges as they were unconscious due to the injuries received by them at
the time of the alleged occurrence in which two persons had died and two
persons received injuries. The conviction of the remaining twenty one
accused, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC, is
also set aside and they are acquitted of the charges as against them the
charge of rioting with deadly weapons has not been proved.
DECISION IN THE CROSS CASE :
Undisputedly, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were medico-
legally examined on 3.5.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. by PW3-Dr. Gian Singh,
who found two fire arm injuries each on their person. In cross-case, the
prosecution also examined PW2-Dr.Ruby Oberoi and PW8-Dr.Gurinder
Singh Mann, who further proved that both the injured remained admitted in
the hospital and were treated for the aforesaid injuries. Undisputedly
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -36-
accused Mohinder Singh was arrested after his discharge from the hospital.
The doctor opined that the injuries received by both the injured were by the
fire arms. Thus, in our opinion, the injuries suffered by these two injured
cannot be said to be self-inflicted or inflicted by a friendly hand. PW1-
Mohinder Singh and PW5-Harbans Kaur have consistently stated in their
statements before the police as well as before the Court that Amrik Singh
(deceased), who was armed with rifle, gave a rifle shot on the left leg of
Mohinder Singh and Shavinderjit Singh gave a gun shot on the left upper
arm of Harbans Kaur. Subsequently, Gurdial Singh, Zora Singh and Ranjit
Singh raised lalkara. Thereafter, they became unconscious. Gurdial Singh
has now expired and admittedly Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh only raised
lalkaras and did not cause any injury. During the investigation, from
Shavinderjit Singh, .315 bore rifle was got recovered from his room vide
recovery memo Ex.P9. Another rifle which was used by Amrik Singh was
also got recovered. From the statement available on the record in the cross
case, it was proved that when the initial occurrence had taken place at 3.00
a.m., Amrik Singh (deceased), Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Ranjit
Singh, Zora Singh, Gurdial Singh and Gobind Singh were present. Out of
them, only Amrik Singh deceased and Shavinderjit Singh, who were armed
with gun, caused gun shot injuries to both the injured and Gurdial Singh,
Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh raised lalkaras, but no role has been attributed
to Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Ram. Amrik Singh, Gobind Ram and
Gurdial Singh have expired and Ranjit Singh became unfit during the trial.
Therefore, the trial Court has convicted Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep
Singh and Zora Singh. Ramandeep Singh even did not raise any lalkara or
caused any injury. The trial Court has convicted Shavinderjit Singh for the
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -37-
offence under Sections 307 IPC for causing gun shot injuries to the injured
and also under Section 148 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, whereas
Ramandeep Singh for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149
IPC and Section 148 IPC, and Zora Singh has been convicted under Section
148 IPC. We do not find any reason for convicting Ramandeep Singh under
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC while acquitting Ranjit Singh for the
same offence. Therefore, the conviction of Ramandeep Singh under Section
307 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside. Further, we are of the opinion
that those persons did not constitute any unlawful assembly and did not
commit the offence of rioting with deadly weapons. They had assembled
there to harvest the crop allegedly sown by them. It cannot be said that at
that time they had constituted unlawful assembly for an illegal object.
Therefore, the conviction of Ramandeep Singh Shavinderjit Singh and Zora
Singh under Section 148 IPC is also not sustainable and the same is hereby
set aside. However, the conviction of accused Shavinderjit Singh under
Section 307 IPC and sentence for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and
also conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence for three
years, are upheld.
CONCLUSION :
Crl. Appeal No.572-DB of 2004 is dismissed. Crl.Appeal
No.585-DB of 2004 is partly allowed. Crl.Appeal No.603-DB of 2004 is
dismissed. Crl.Appeal No.646-DB of 2004 is dismissed. Crl.Appeal
No.1362-SB of 2004 is allowed. Crl.Appeal No.1388-SB of 2004 is
allowed. Crl.Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 is partly allowed and Crl.Revision
No.2410 of 2004 is dismissed.
The appellants, who are in custody and whose appeals have
Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004 -38-
been allowed and whose conviction and sentence have been set aside, be set
at liberty, if not required in any other case. Similarly, the appellants, who
are on bail and whose appeals have been dismissed and whose conviction
and sentence have been upheld, shall surrender to custody to undergo the
remainder of sentence.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 17, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) vkg JUDGE