{"id":107158,"date":"2009-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-16T10:25:25","modified_gmt":"2015-05-16T04:55:25","slug":"parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009<\/div>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL          NO. 686-DB OF 2001                 -1-\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH         COURT        OF   PUNJAB    AND     HARYANA       AT\nCHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n            DATE OF DECISION: October 29, 2009.\n\n                  Parties Name\nBalkar Singh and another\n\n                                      ..APPELLANTS\n      VERSUS\n\nState of Punjab\n                                      ...RESPONDENT\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n            HON'BLE MRS . JUSTICE. DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr.D. S. Pheruman,\n         Advocate, for the appellants\n\n            Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab,\n            for the respondent.\n\n\nJASBIR SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
ORDER.\n<\/p>\n
            Balkar Singh, appellant No. 1 (A-1) and his brother Major<\/p>\n
Singh, appellant No. 2 ( A-2) have filed this appeal against judgment and<\/p>\n
order dated November 20, 2001, vide which they were convicted for<\/p>\n
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34<\/p>\n
IPC, further for commission of an offence punishable under Section 452<\/p>\n
IPC and also for commission of offence punishable under Section 324\/34<\/p>\n
IPC. Following order of sentence was passed against them:<\/p>\n
            “Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL            NO. 686-DB OF 2001                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
             case, both the convicts named Balkar Singh and Major Singh<\/p>\n
             are sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay fine<\/p>\n
             of Rs. 500\/- each u\/S 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine,<\/p>\n
             the defaulter will undergo further R.I. for two months. Both the<\/p>\n
             convicts are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each<\/p>\n
             and to pay fine of Rs. 1000\/- each u\/S 302\/34 IPC and in<\/p>\n
             default of payment of fine, the defaulter will undergo further<\/p>\n
             R.I. for six months. Both the convicts are further sentenced to<\/p>\n
             undergo R.I. for 1 \u00bd years each u\/S 324 \/34 IPC. Both       the<\/p>\n
             sentences were ordered to run concurrently.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It was allegation against the appellants that they,on May 10,<\/p>\n
1999, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to Rani<\/p>\n
wife of Wazir Singh, and Malkiat Singh(PW7) son of Wazir Singh. Smt.<\/p>\n
Rani succumbed to her injuries on May 20, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
             Process of Criminal Law was put into motion on a statement<\/p>\n
made by Malkiat Singh (PW7) on May 11, 1999, on the basis of which<\/p>\n
formal FIR Ex. PH\/3 was registered against the appellants at 12.05 PM, on<\/p>\n
the above said date, under Section 324\/34 IPC. The statement of Malkiat<\/p>\n
Singh was recorded by S.I. Gurdial Singh (PW10), the Investigating Officer,<\/p>\n
in the Civil Hospital at Gurdaspur.\n<\/p>\n
             Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court in para No.<\/p>\n
2 of its judgment, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “The prosecution case as narrated in the charge-sheet filed u\/S<\/p>\n
             173 Cr.P.C. at the hands of Station House Officer of Police<\/p>\n
             Station Dina Nagar is that on 11-5-1999, on receipt of questy
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO. 686-DB OF 2001                    -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
       message from S.H.O., P.S. City Gurdaspur, to the effect that<\/p>\n
       medico-legal reports of Malkiat Singh son of Wazir Singh, Smt.<\/p>\n
       Rani wife of Wazir Singh and Balkar Singh son of Dewan<\/p>\n
       Chand, residents of village Kairey had been received there<\/p>\n
       from the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, SI Gurdial Singh of Police<\/p>\n
       Station Dina Nagar along with HC Lakhwinder Singh,<\/p>\n
       Constable Mohinder Ram and Constable Parminder Kumar had<\/p>\n
       reached Police Station City Gurdaspur and after obtaining the<\/p>\n
       copies of the said medico-legal reports, they had reached Civil<\/p>\n
       Hospital, Gurdaspur.    Applications were moved by the Sub<\/p>\n
       Inspector regarding fitness or otherwise of the said persons to<\/p>\n
       make the statement. Smt. Rani was opined by the doctor to be<\/p>\n
       unfit to make the statement, but Malkiat Singh was opined to be<\/p>\n
       fit to make the statement. Statement of Malkiat Singh son of<\/p>\n
       Wazir Singh was then recorded by SI Gurdial Singh. It was<\/p>\n
       disclosed by him that on 10-5-1999, at about 7 P.M., he<\/p>\n
       (Malkiat Singh), Balkar Singh, Major Singh and some other<\/p>\n
       persons were sitting in the out-skirts of the village on the bank<\/p>\n
       of the road on a bridge. One Inderjit Singh son of Shangara<\/p>\n
       Singh had reached there and Malkiat Singh had asked said<\/p>\n
       Inderjit Singh as to why he had got application filed against<\/p>\n
       him for a minor dispute that had occurred in the village.<\/p>\n
       Inderjit Singh had stated that he had not got any such<\/p>\n
       application filed and he (Inderjit Singh ) had asked Malkiat<\/p>\n
       Singh as to who had told him that fact. Malkiat Singh had then<\/p>\n
       said that Balkar Singh was telling it. Inderjit Singh had then
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO. 686-DB OF 2001                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
       called Balkar Singh and some wordy- duel had taken place<\/p>\n
       between Inderjit Singh and Balkar Singh. The other persons of<\/p>\n
       the village sitting there had intervened and sent both of them to<\/p>\n
       their respective houses. That at about 7.30 P.M., he (Malkiat<\/p>\n
       Singh) was sitting in his house , when Balkar Singh armed with<\/p>\n
       drat and Major Singh armed with Kirpan had reached in the<\/p>\n
       street in front of his house. They had started giving abuses to<\/p>\n
       him and had given kicks on the outer door of the house. The<\/p>\n
       outer door was opened by Smt. Rani Devi, mother of Malkiat<\/p>\n
       Singh and she had requested them not to give abuses; that<\/p>\n
       Balkar Singh had given a blow with the Drat he was having<\/p>\n
       with him on the person of Smt. Rani Devi, his (Malkiat Singh’s)<\/p>\n
       mother; which hit her (Rani Devi) on the head in the left side.<\/p>\n
       Smt. Rani had fallen down. Hue and cry was raised by them and<\/p>\n
       Major Singh accused      after trespassing into the house, had<\/p>\n
       given blow with the Kirpan on him (Malkiat Singh), which hit<\/p>\n
       him on the right thumb, when he had tried to ward off the blow<\/p>\n
       and Balkar Singh had given two blows with the Drat on him,<\/p>\n
       one of which hit on his head in the back side and the other near<\/p>\n
       the ear on the left side; that he (Malkiat Singh) had fallen down<\/p>\n
       in the court-yard of the house; that hue and cry raised by them<\/p>\n
       had attracted Mithu son of Pirthi Singh, who had rescued him<\/p>\n
       from the clutches of the accused persons; that both the accused<\/p>\n
       persons had fled away from the spot along with their respective<\/p>\n
       weapons; that he (Malkiat Singh) and Smt. Rani were rushed to<\/p>\n
       Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             It is apparent from the records that the Investigating Officer –<\/p>\n
SI Gurdayal Singh (PW10) , on receipt of intimation from the Hospital,<\/p>\n
went there. He moved an application to know about fitness of Malkiat<\/p>\n
Singh, to make a statement. Doctor gave a positive opinion, which led to<\/p>\n
the recording of statement Ex. PH of Malkiat Singh (PW7). PW10 also<\/p>\n
sought opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of Smt. Rani to make her<\/p>\n
statement.   However, the Doctor declared Smt. Rani unfit to make the<\/p>\n
statement vide report Ex. PB\/1. As per record, on account of her serious<\/p>\n
condition, the deceased was referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital at<\/p>\n
Amritsar for treatment, where she died on May 20, 1999. As per evidence<\/p>\n
on record, Smt. Rani was medico legally examined by Dr. Ramesh Mahajan<\/p>\n
(PW2) on May 10, 1999, at 10.45 PM and he found the following injuries<\/p>\n
on her person:\n<\/p>\n
             “Incised wound 15 cm x 3 cms present on the left side of the<\/p>\n
             head, 2 cms from mid line, extending from 4 cms behind the<\/p>\n
             anterior hair line upto the occipital region. Wound was bone<\/p>\n
             deep and bleeding profusely.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Injury was declared grievous vide doctor’s opinion dated May<\/p>\n
11, 1999. This witness on the same date also medico legally examined<\/p>\n
Malkiat Singh (PW7) at 11.30 PM and found the following injuries on his<\/p>\n
person:\n<\/p>\n
             “1. Incised wound 2 cm x .25 cm present behind left ear.<\/p>\n
             Wound was bleeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. Incised would of 3 cms x 5 cm present on the left side of the
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL            NO. 686-DB OF 2001                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
               scalp, 6 cms above left ear. Wound was bleeding.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. Incised wound 1 cm x .25 cm present over the distal phalanx<\/p>\n
               of right thumb”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Injuries were declared simple in nature, the Doctor further<\/p>\n
opined that those could be suffered by a friendly hand.<\/p>\n
             This witness had also medico legally examined Balkar Singh<\/p>\n
(A-1) on May 11, 1999, at 12.45 AM and found the following injuries at her<\/p>\n
person:\n<\/p>\n
            “1. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm in size over dorsal aspect of left<\/p>\n
            fore-arm, 3 cms above wrist joint. Wound was bleeding.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2. Incised wound 2.5 cm in size skin deep present over knuckle<\/p>\n
               of middle finger of left hand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Incised wound 12 cms x 1.5 cm in size present over left<\/p>\n
               shoulder, starting 2 cms above junction of lateral and middle<\/p>\n
               third of clevical and extending back upto left scapular<\/p>\n
               region. Wound was bleeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. Incised wound 5 cms x 1 cm in size over right scapular<\/p>\n
               region. Wound was continuing as skin deep cut. 4 cms in<\/p>\n
               size supero laterally and 22 cms skin deep out infero<\/p>\n
               medially.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5. 2 cms x 1 cm incised wound present over right shoulder<\/p>\n
               joint.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6. 2 cms abrasion was present over right pinna, reddish in<\/p>\n
               colour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. 1 cm abrasion was present over back side of left pinna.”
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
            Injuries were declared simple in nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Ashok<\/p>\n
Chanana (PW3) on May 21, 1999, and he made the following observation<\/p>\n
regarding injury to the deceased:\n<\/p>\n
            “An oblique stitched wound 16 cms long with 12 stitches intact<\/p>\n
            was present on the left side of the head in its centre. It extended<\/p>\n
            from the frontal to occipital region. On dissection, the margins<\/p>\n
            were clean cut with clotted blood between the margins.<\/p>\n
            Underlying tissue was infiltrated with blood. The underlying<\/p>\n
            left parietal bone was having a fracture with clean cut margins.<\/p>\n
            Clotted blood was present at the site. The underlying dura and<\/p>\n
            arachnoid matter were also cut. The corresponding portion of<\/p>\n
            the brain had become soft. The cranial cavity contained 120 cc<\/p>\n
            blood in the form of intracranial haemorrhage. The base of the<\/p>\n
            brain was compressed. The heart, stomach, small intestines and<\/p>\n
            bladder was empty. Large intestines contained faeces. The<\/p>\n
            injury was ante mortem in origin.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            This witness has stated that the death was the result of injury,<\/p>\n
mentioned above, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of<\/p>\n
nature.\n<\/p>\n
             After registration of FIR, Investigating Officer went to the<\/p>\n
spot, prepared a rough site plan (Ex PK) of the place of occurrence with<\/p>\n
correct marginal notes. In the meantime, he also recorded statements of the<\/p>\n
eye witnesses, i.e., Malkiat Singh (PW7) and Ravi Singh (PW8). Blood
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
-stained earth was removed from the spot, which was taken into possession<\/p>\n
against a recovery memo. The appellant – accused was arrested and on a<\/p>\n
disclosure statement made by Balkar Singh (A-1) , weapon of offence was<\/p>\n
recovered. On completion of other formalities, final report was put in Court<\/p>\n
for trial.\n<\/p>\n
             The appellants were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced ten witnesses and also<\/p>\n
brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants – accused were recorded<\/p>\n
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was<\/p>\n
put to them.    They denied it, pleaded innocence and false implication.<\/p>\n
Balkar Singh , appellant, took up the following defence:<\/p>\n
             “I had gone to the house of Malkiat Singh empty handed to sort<\/p>\n
             out some misunderstanding about me. When I called him, he<\/p>\n
             opned the door and came in the street holding a naked Kirpan.<\/p>\n
             During argument he scuffled with me, when his mother Smt.<\/p>\n
             Rani tried to separate us and during the scuffle the Kirpan of<\/p>\n
             Malkiat Singh accidently hit Smt. Rani. I am innocent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Major Singh (A-2) said that he was not present at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The appellants also led evidence in defence.<\/p>\n
             The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by the parties,<\/p>\n
found the appellants guilty , convicted and sentenced them, as found<\/p>\n
mentioned, in earlier part of this order. Hence this appeal.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the parties heard.\n<\/p>\n
             Shri D.S.Pheruman, counsel for the appellants, has vehemently
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that the prosecution has made an attempt to suppress true genesis<\/p>\n
of the crime. There is no explanation for injuries, received by Balkar Singh<\/p>\n
(A-1) at the time of alleged occurrence.        He further argued that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has miserably failed to explain delay in recording the FIR. By<\/p>\n
making reference to the site plan Ex. PK, he argued that the occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place in the street and not in the house of the deceased, as projected<\/p>\n
by PW7. As such conviction and sentence, awarded to the appellants, under<\/p>\n
Section 452 IPC was not justified. In the alternative, without conceding<\/p>\n
anything, he argued that the conviction of Major Singh (A-2) by invoking<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 34 IPC was not justified. At no time, Major Singh<\/p>\n
shared a common intention with Balkar Singh (A-1) to kill Smt. Rani. For<\/p>\n
Balkar Singh (A-1), he argued that it was a case of free fight. Smt. Rani<\/p>\n
was an intervener, may be, by accident an injury was caused to her, which<\/p>\n
proved fatal. By stating as above, he argued that the appeal be allowed,<\/p>\n
judgment and order under challenge be set aside and the appellants be<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges framed against them.\n<\/p>\n
            Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri D.S. Brar,<\/p>\n
Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.         He, by making reference to the<\/p>\n
statements of PW7 and PW8, argued that a vivid eye -witness account of the<\/p>\n
occurrence has been given by above named witnesses, which fully proves<\/p>\n
guilt of the appellants – accused. He further argued that the first concern of<\/p>\n
the family was to save Smt. Rani and give medical treatment to Malkiat<\/p>\n
Singh (PW7), for which both were shifted to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur.<\/p>\n
Smt. Rani was unconscious. Malkiat Singh was also seriously injured. In<\/p>\n
view of above, there may be some delay in getting the FIR recorded.<\/p>\n
However, the same, in view of facts of this case, is not fatal to the case of
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                  -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
the prosecution. He further argued that both the appellants came armed to<\/p>\n
the house of the deceased, caused injuries to her, without any provocation,<\/p>\n
after entering the house. He prayed that in view of evidence on record,<\/p>\n
judgment and order, passed by the trial Court, are perfectly justified. He<\/p>\n
prayed that the appeal having no substance be dismissed.<\/p>\n
            As per case of     the prosecution, on May 10, 1999, in the<\/p>\n
evening both the appellants,fully armed, came to the house of the deceased<\/p>\n
and started abusing her family members. When Smt. Rani opened the<\/p>\n
door, Balkar Singh (A-1) instantaneously gave blow of Datar at her head.<\/p>\n
Then both the appellants entered house of the deceased and caused injuries<\/p>\n
to Malkiat Singh (PW7). Hue and cry raised by Malkiat Singh, attracted<\/p>\n
the neighbours. The appellants ran away from the spot with their weapons.<\/p>\n
As per evidence on record, deceased and injured Malkiat Singh were<\/p>\n
immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where deceased was<\/p>\n
medico legally examined by Dr. Ramesh Mahajan (PW2) at 10.45 PM.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, Malkiat Singh (PW7) was examined by the above said witness at<\/p>\n
11.30 PM. As per evidence on record, Doctor immediately sent intimation<\/p>\n
in that regard to the Police Station City Gurdaspur. Offence was committed<\/p>\n
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dina Nagar. The officials of Police<\/p>\n
Station City Gurdaspur then sent information of the incident to the Police<\/p>\n
Station Dina Nagar.     Intimation of the occurrence was very prompt.<\/p>\n
However, thereafter the Investigating Officer might have taken some time to<\/p>\n
go to Gurdaspur. In view of medical evidence on record, facts, mentioned<\/p>\n
above, and statements made by PW7 and PW8, it is clearly established that<\/p>\n
there was no delay in recording the FIR. First concern of the family was to
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL              NO. 686-DB OF 2001                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
save the injured.   That process may have consumed some time, which<\/p>\n
cannot be taken against the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
             Medical evidence on record, coupled with statements made by<\/p>\n
PW7 and PW8 and also stand taken by Balkar Singh (A-1), in his statement<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., clearly establish that the occurrence<\/p>\n
had taken place on May 10, 1999, in which injuries were received by Smt.<\/p>\n
Rani deceased and Malkiat Singh (PW7).\n<\/p>\n
             Now it is to be examined as to whether occurrence had taken<\/p>\n
place in the house of the complainant or outside in the street. PW7 in his<\/p>\n
statement has stated that the blood had fallen down at the place where his<\/p>\n
mother had received the injuries. As per site plan Ex. PK, which was<\/p>\n
prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot, the injury is shown to have<\/p>\n
been caused to Smt. Rani in the street and to PW7, just in the door of his<\/p>\n
house.   Perusal of site plan clearly indicates that the appellants never<\/p>\n
entered house of the complainant and as such their conviction under Section<\/p>\n
452 IPC was not justified.\n<\/p>\n
             Examination of evidence further reveals that it was not a pre-<\/p>\n
planned attack. It was a case of sudden fight between the parties. The<\/p>\n
prosecution has miserably failed to give any explanation for the injuries,<\/p>\n
received by Balkar Singh (A-1) at the same time, when injuries are alleged<\/p>\n
to have been caused to the deceased and the complainant. Balkar Singh was<\/p>\n
medico legally examined by Dr. Ramesh Mahajan (PW2) on May 11, 1999,<\/p>\n
at 12.45 AM. Seven injuries were found at his person.           PW7, In his<\/p>\n
statement,   on the basis of which FIR was recorded, has very vaguely<\/p>\n
mentioned that at the time of occurrence, Balkar Singh (A-1) also received<\/p>\n
injuries. It was also so stated by PW8 in his statement recorded under
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL            NO. 686-DB OF 2001                    -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, at the time of trial, both the witnesses took a<\/p>\n
somersault and denied that any injury was received by Balkar Singh (A-1) at<\/p>\n
the time of alleged occurrence. They have rather said that they had not seen<\/p>\n
any injury on the person of above named accused. This Court feels that in<\/p>\n
view of over-whelming evidence on record, stand taken by the complainant<\/p>\n
party appears to be false. An attempt has been made to suppress real facts<\/p>\n
of the occurrence. As per medical evidence on record, injuries to Balkar<\/p>\n
Singh are proved on record. Those were of the same duration, in which<\/p>\n
injuries, allegedly, were received by the complainant party.                The<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer behaved in a very strange manner. Investigation by<\/p>\n
him was tainted. In his statement, he has admitted that he had received<\/p>\n
medico legal report of Balkar Singh along with medico legal report of Smt.<\/p>\n
Rani and PW7. However, he did not take any action and made no attempt to<\/p>\n
record statement of Balkar Singh (A-1), even after moving an application to<\/p>\n
the Doctor to know about his fitness, to make a statement. Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer has further authenticated that PW7 and PW8 had admitted that<\/p>\n
injuries were received by Balkar Singh in the scuffle. Admittedly, Balkar<\/p>\n
Singh (A-1) also remained admitted in the Hospital.<\/p>\n
             In view of facts, mentioned above, and taking note of injuries,<\/p>\n
received by both the parties, it can easily be said that it was a case of sudden<\/p>\n
fight between the parties.     PW7 and the assailants were in scuffle.        It<\/p>\n
appears that Smt. Rani intervened to separate them and in that process, one<\/p>\n
injury was caused by Balkar Singh (A-1) at her head, which proved to be<\/p>\n
fatal. Injury was not repeated. Major Singh (A-2) made no attempt to cause<\/p>\n
any injury to the deceased. Injury caused by A-2 to PW2 is on non-vital<\/p>\n
part of the body and simple in nature, which makes it very clear that neither
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL            NO. 686-DB OF 2001                    -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
Balkar Singh (A-1) nor Major Singh (A-2) had any intention, what to talk of<\/p>\n
common intention, to kill Smt. Rani. As per evidence on record, in the<\/p>\n
evening, some hot words had exchanged between Balkar Singh (A-1) and<\/p>\n
Malkiat Singh (PW7). In view of the circumstances on record, stand of<\/p>\n
Balkar Singh that he had gone to the house of Malkiat Singh to remove<\/p>\n
some misunderstanding appears to be justified. This Court feels that in the<\/p>\n
process of talking with each other, a fight might have ensued between them.<\/p>\n
It was not a pre-planned attack, as projected by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
             In view of facts, mentioned above, Major Singh (A-2) can be<\/p>\n
held liable individually, for his own act and he cannot be fastened with<\/p>\n
vicarious liability for a criminal act, committed by his brother (A-1).<\/p>\n
             Against Balkar Singh also, it appears that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
failed to make out any case under Section 302 IPC. As has been discussed<\/p>\n
earlier, when Smt. Rani made an attempt to intervene in the scuffle, between<\/p>\n
his son Malkiat Singh (PW7) and the appellants, she received one injury at<\/p>\n
her head, which resulted into her death. As such, in view of facts of this<\/p>\n
case, offence committed by Balkar Singh (A-1) would fall within the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 304, Part I IPC.\n<\/p>\n
              Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence against both the appellants under Section 452 and 302\/34 IPC are<\/p>\n
set aside. Balkar Singh (A-1) is held guilty for commission of an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 304, Part 1 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of ten years. Fine imposed upon him by the trial<\/p>\n
Court is maintained. He is further held guilty for commission of offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentence awarded to him by the trial<\/p>\n
Court is affirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL           NO. 686-DB OF 2001                    -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
              Appellant Major Singh (A-2) is held guilty for commission of<\/p>\n
an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and his sentence is reduced to<\/p>\n
the one , already undergone by him. However, with a view to settle equity<\/p>\n
between the parties and by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 357<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. , Major Singh (A-2) is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000\/-<\/p>\n
with the trial Court within a period of two months. On deposit so being<\/p>\n
made, the amount be disbursed to legal heirs of the deceased, Smt. Rani,<\/p>\n
forth-with. In case amount is not deposited , liberty is granted to legal heirs<\/p>\n
of the deceased to recover the same by filing execution application before<\/p>\n
the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                               ( DAYA CHAUDHARY)
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
October 29, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
DKC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686-DB OF 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: October 29, 2009. Parties Name Balkar Singh and another ..APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Punjab …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009"},"wordCount":3609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009","name":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T04:55:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}