{"id":46267,"date":"2009-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-18T14:09:05","modified_gmt":"2015-02-18T08:39:05","slug":"amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009<\/div>\n
           Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                    -1-\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                          AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                  (1)   Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004\n\n                          DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\n\nAmrik Singh and another\n                                                   .....APPELLANTS\n                              Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                   ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n                  (2)   Crl.A. No.585-DB of 2004\n\n                          DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\n\nMohinder Singh and others\n                                                   .....APPELLANTS\n                              Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                   ....RESPONDENT\n\n\n                  (3)   Crl.A. No.603-DB of 2004\n\n                          DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\nMakhan Singh\n                                                   .....APPELLANT\n                              Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                   ....RESPONDENT\n\n                  (4)   Crl.A. No.646-DB of 2004\n\n                          DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\nGurdial Singh and another\n                                                   .....APPELLANTS\n                              Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                   ....RESPONDENT\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                      -2-\n\n                  (5)   Crl.A. No.1362-SB of 2004\n\n                         DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\nParamjit Singh and others\n                                                     .....APPELLANTS\n                                Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                    ....RESPONDENT\n\n                  (6)   Crl.A. No.1388-SB of 2004\n\n                         DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\nBaljinder Kaur and others\n                                                     .....APPELLANTS\n                                Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                    ....RESPONDENT\n\n                  (7)   Crl.A. No.1314-SB of 2004\n\n                         DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\nShavinderjit Singh and others\n                                                     .....APPELLANTS\n                                Versus\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                    ....RESPONDENT\n\n                  (8)   Crl.Revn. No.2410 of 2004\n\n                         DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009\n\n\nRanjit Singh\n                                                     .....PETITIONER\n                                Versus\n\n\nMohinder Singh and others\n                                                    ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\nCORAM:     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n                         ---\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -3-\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.R.S. Cheema,Sr. Advocate,\n            with Mr.Pawan Girdhar and\n            Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocates,\n            for the appellants in Crl.Appeals\n            No. 585-DB of 2004, 603-DB of 2004,\n            646-DB of 2004 and 1362-SB of 2004\n            (except appellant Sumittar Kaur in\n            Crl.Appeal No.1362-SB of 2004).\n\n            Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate\n            with Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Advocate,\n            for appellant Sumittar Kaur in\n            Crl.Appeal No.1362-SB of 2004.\n\n            Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate,\n            for the appellants in Crl.Appeals\n            No.572-DB of 2004 and 1388-SB of 2004.\n\n            Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate,\n            with Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Advocate,\n            for the appellants in Crl.Appeal\n            No.1314-SB of 2004, for the\n            petitioner in Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004\n            and for the complainant in other cases.\n\n            Mrs.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate\n            General, Punjab, for the respondent-State\n            in other cases.\n                  ..\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals No.572-DB of<\/p>\n
2004, 585-DB of 2004, 603-DB of 2004, 646-DB of 2004, 1362-SB of<\/p>\n
2004, 1388-SB of 2004 as well as Criminal Revision No.2410 of 2004,<\/p>\n
which have arisen from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence<\/p>\n
dated 14.06.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala<\/p>\n
in case FIR No.412 dated 3.5.2001 under Sections 302\/307\/148\/149 IPC<\/p>\n
and Sections 25\/27\/54\/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station<\/p>\n
Sadar, Patiala. First six appeals have been filed by thirty accused, who have<\/p>\n
been convicted for various offences, whereas Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
has been filed by the complainant’s side. This judgment will also dispose of<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 which has arisen from the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and order of sentence dated 14.6.2004 passed by the Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions   Judge     (Adhoc),    Patiala   in   cross-version,         i.e.,   SC<\/p>\n
No.58T\/FTC\/23.4.2004, which was initiated on the basis of the statement<\/p>\n
made by Mohinder Singh (accused).\n<\/p>\n
            In this case two persons, namely, Amrik Singh and Vikramjit<\/p>\n
Singh had died and two persons, namely, Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh, suffered fire-arm injuries from the complainant’s side; and two<\/p>\n
persons, namely, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur suffered fire-arm<\/p>\n
injuries from the accused side. Eight accused, namely, Amrik Singh son of<\/p>\n
Gurdev Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of Amrik Singh (who have filed<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.572-DB of 2004), Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Banta Singh, Jaswinder Singh son of Chhota Singh (who have filed<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.585-DB of 2004), Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh (who<\/p>\n
has filed Crl.Appeal No.603-DB of 2004), Gurdial Singh son of Jagat Singh<\/p>\n
and Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh (who have filed Crl.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.646-DB of 2004) have been convicted under Section 302 IPC for<\/p>\n
committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh and sentenced<\/p>\n
for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000\/-. Harbans Kaur wife of<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh (who is one of the appellant in Crl.A.No.585-DB of 2004)<\/p>\n
has been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC for<\/p>\n
committing the murder of aforesaid two persons and sentenced for life<\/p>\n
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000\/-. Out of the aforesaid nine accused,<\/p>\n
three accused, namely, Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh and Balwinder Singh<\/p>\n
have also been convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Act for attempt to murder of aforesaid two injured persons and using fire<\/p>\n
arm, and sentenced for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000\/- and three years and<\/p>\n
a fine of Rs.1000\/-, respectively, for such offences. Five accused, namely,<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju, Jaswinder Singh, Makhan Singh and<\/p>\n
Gurdail Singh have been convicted for the offences under Section 307 read<\/p>\n
with Section 149 IPC for attempt to murder of aforesaid two persons and<\/p>\n
sentenced for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000\/-. The remaining twenty one<\/p>\n
accused (who have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced for<\/p>\n
three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000\/-) have filed two separate appeals i.e.<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeals No.1362-SB of 2004 and 1388-SB of 2004. One accused<\/p>\n
Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch of the village has been acquitted.<\/p>\n
            Crl.Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 has been filed in the cross-<\/p>\n
version case by Shavinderjit Singh, who has been convicted under Sections<\/p>\n
307 and 148 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for seven<\/p>\n
years with a fine of Rs.1000\/-, three years with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and three<\/p>\n
years, respectively, for such offences; Ramandeep Singh, who has been<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148<\/p>\n
IPC and sentenced for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and three years<\/p>\n
with a fine of Rs.1000\/-, respectively, for such offences and Zora Singh,<\/p>\n
who has been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced for three<\/p>\n
years with a fine of Rs.1000\/-, for causing grievous injuries with intention<\/p>\n
to cause death, fire-arm injuries to Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur.<\/p>\n
            The main case as well as the cross-version were tried separately<\/p>\n
by the same Court and separate judgments were delivered on the same day.<\/p>\n
            Crl.Revision No.2410 of 2004 has been filed by the<\/p>\n
complainant Ranjit Singh against acquittal of Amarjit Kaur,Sarpanch and
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
for convicting the other accused for the offences under Section 302 read<\/p>\n
with Section 149 IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC,<\/p>\n
who have only been convicted under Section 148 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
FACTS OF THE MAIN CASE:\n<\/p>\n
            As per the prosecution version, which is based on the statement<\/p>\n
of Ranjit Singh (PW11), the alleged occurrence had taken place on 3.5.2001<\/p>\n
at about 4.30\/5.00 a.m. in village Chuharpur Kalan, Police Station Sadar,<\/p>\n
Patiala. In his statement (Ex.PA), Ranjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh stated<\/p>\n
that they were four brothers. He was eldest, younger to him was Jora Singh,<\/p>\n
then Amrik Singh (deceased) and youngest was Pritam Singh, who had<\/p>\n
expired long back. On 3.5.2001 at about 4.30\/5.00 a.m. he along with his<\/p>\n
brother Amrik Singh and his sons Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh<\/p>\n
and nephews Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh were harvesting the<\/p>\n
wheat crop sown by Amrik Singh in their land (which is claimed to be in<\/p>\n
possession by the accused side being Pattedar of the Panchayat). Suddenly<\/p>\n
from the village side a number of persons in the shape of mob armed with<\/p>\n
weapons, consisting of Mohinder Singh, armed with gun, Binder Singh,<\/p>\n
armed with gun, Gurdial Singh, armed with gun, Balwinder Singh @ Bindi,<\/p>\n
armed with gun, Makhan Singh armed with gun, Raju armed with gun,<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda son of Chhota Singh armed with gun, Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh son of Gurdev Singh armed with gun, Samitter Kaur armed with<\/p>\n
pistol and Lalla and Nikku sons of Mohinder Singh, Harbans Kaur wife of<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh, Ranjit Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh son of<\/p>\n
Menan Singh, Raja and Soni sons of Bhajan Singh, Raghu son of Kartar<\/p>\n
Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch, wife of Makhan Singh, Amrik Singh son of<\/p>\n
Gurdev Singh’s wife, Soni son of Charan Singh, Gurdev Kaur wife of
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Gurdial Singh, Ninder Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Rajinder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh, Charno wife of Balwinder Singh @ Binda, Sharanjit Singh<\/p>\n
son of Inderjit Singh, Vicky son of Inderjit Singh, Pammi daughter of<\/p>\n
Charan Singh, Jagdish Singh @ Guddu son of Banta Singh Kalal, residents<\/p>\n
of Chuharpur Kalan and Shinderpal son of Karta Ram, Shivji son of<\/p>\n
Tarsem, Shamsher Singh son of Hazara Singh, residents of Chuharpur<\/p>\n
Kalan armed with gandasi, kirpan, dangs came from the side of village by<\/p>\n
raising lalkara and were saying that they should not be allowed to go and<\/p>\n
they should be taught a lesson for harvesting the crop without their consent.<\/p>\n
It was further stated that those persons with intention to kill them, started<\/p>\n
firing at them. Before they realized anything, his brother Amrik Singh and<\/p>\n
his son Vikramjit Singh fell down due to bullet injuries. When they were<\/p>\n
trying to reach near them in order to take care of them and to save<\/p>\n
themselves from the gun shots coming from the opposite side, his nephew<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh received a gun shot. In order to rescue themselves, they<\/p>\n
took the shelter of combine by reaching there by means of rolling on the<\/p>\n
earth. In the meanwhile, the driver of the combine in order to save himself<\/p>\n
ran away by leaving the combine in started condition. It was further stated<\/p>\n
that at the same time the above-said persons, who were armed with kirpans,<\/p>\n
gandasies and guns reached near the combine, who with their respective<\/p>\n
weapons attacked on Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, who were in<\/p>\n
crumbled condition and all the persons gave injuries on their persons<\/p>\n
blindly. Thereafter, those persons came towards them and inflicted injuries<\/p>\n
on him and Shavinderjit Singh. In the meantime, when his nephews<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh, who had kept concealed themselves<\/p>\n
and on their raising noise loudly `Bachao-bachao’ all the accused fled away
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
from the spot with their respective weapons while raising lalkaras that they<\/p>\n
had succeeded in achieving their goal. When all the assailants had covered<\/p>\n
sufficient distance from the place of occurrence, then he and Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh came from backside of combine in injured condition and saw that<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh had succumbed to the gun shots<\/p>\n
and other injuries received by them. In the meanwhile, his father and other<\/p>\n
persons of the village came at the place of occurrence on hearing the noise.<\/p>\n
His father and his nephew after arranging the vehicles took him and<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for treatment. The dead<\/p>\n
bodies of his brother Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh were lying<\/p>\n
in the fields. He stated that all the aforesaid persons in conspiracy with each<\/p>\n
other had killed Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh with gun shots. He stated<\/p>\n
that the motive behind the occurrence is that his brother Amrik Singh was<\/p>\n
having 2-1\/2 killas of land adjoining the land of their village and was<\/p>\n
cultivating the same for many years. Even girdawari of the said land was in<\/p>\n
the name of Amrik Singh. Thus the assailant party in connivance with<\/p>\n
Sarpanch of the village wanted to dispossess him from this land forcibly. On<\/p>\n
the said date the above-said occurrence had taken place when Amrik Singh<\/p>\n
was harvesting his crop. Therefore, action be taken against the said persons.<\/p>\n
            On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was<\/p>\n
registered at 10 a.m. at Police Station Sadar, Patiala under Sections<\/p>\n
302,307,148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act.<\/p>\n
Special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate which was received at 2.40<\/p>\n
p.m. on the same date. SHO Sewa Singh recorded the aforesaid statement in<\/p>\n
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala after obtaining the opinion of the doctor<\/p>\n
regarding fitness of injured Ranjit Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
MEDICAL EVIDENCE :\n<\/p>\n
               On 3.5.2001 at 5.30 a.m., PW3-Dr.Harminder Singh, Medical<\/p>\n
Officer, Blood Bank, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala had medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined Ranjit Singh (complainant) and found the following injuries on<\/p>\n
his person:-\n<\/p>\n
               “1.   A T shape wound 5 x 4 cm incised wound on right fore-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     head 1.5 cm below the right hair line with fresh bleeding.
\n                     X-ray was advised under surgeon’s observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.    A lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 cm at the base of the
\n                     nose was present with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised
\n                     under surgeon’s observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3.    Patient complained of pain on fingers of right hand with
\n                     abrasions 1 cm x 1 cm at the distal end of and end of the
\n                     leg little finger of right hand on palmar aspects. Advised
\n                     X-ray under ortho surgeon observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               4.    1 x 1 cm abrasion on dorsal aspect of at the distal end of
\n                     the middle finger of right hand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               5.    1 x 0.5 cm abrasion at the base of right little finger on
\n                     dorsal aspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.    1 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of left
\n                     fore-arm 3 cm below the left elbow joint. Advised X-ray
\n                     under ortho surgeon’s observation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
All the injuries were declared to be simple in nature. On the same day and at<\/p>\n
the same time he had also medico-legally examined Shavinderjit Singh and<\/p>\n
found the following injuries on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
               “1.   4 x 1 cm incised wound on the left parital aspect of scalp
\n                     11 cm from the left ear pinna with fresh bleedings. X-ray
\n                     was advised, under surgeon’s observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.    0.5 x 0.5 cm penetrating wound with blackish margin
\n                     was present on the left cheek which was 3 cm anterior to
\n                     the tragus of the left ear. X-ray was advised under
\n                     surgeon’s observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3.    0.5 x 0.5 cm penetrating wound was present on the upper
\n                     end of the sternum with blackish margin and 3 x 5 cm
\n                     red contusion on the left chest 4 cm lateral to the sternum
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                  was present. X-ray was advised under surgeon’s
\n                  observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4.    4 x 4 cm swelling on the dorsal aspect of right hand at
\n                  the base of right index and middle finger. X-ray was
\n                  advised under ortho surgeon’s observation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5.    6 x 3 cm red contusion on posterior aspect of left fore-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  arm 9 cm proximal the left wrist joint was present.”<\/p>\n
Again all the injuries were found simple in nature. Copies of the MLRs of<\/p>\n
the two injured have been placed on record as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4,<\/p>\n
respectively.\n<\/p>\n
            On 3.5.2001 at about 2.00 p.m., PW14-Dr.O.P.Aggarwal,<\/p>\n
Additional Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Government Medical<\/p>\n
College, Patiala conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Amrik Singh,<\/p>\n
aged 43-45 years. He found the following injuries on his body :<\/p>\n
            “1.   There was lacerated wound 4 cm x 4 cm on the front of
\n                  left side of chest. 6 cm below the left nipple. The margin
\n                  was inverted, Abraded, irregular, Blackening, Tattooing
\n                  were present. Underneath ribs were fractured. The wound
\n                  entered the chest cavity injuring the left lung and heart.
\n                  Pallets were found embbed in the posterior wall in the
\n                  scapular area. Wad was found in the wound there was
\n                  grease collar around the wound was present. The chest
\n                  cavity contained clotted blood. (Entry wound)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.    Five lacerated wound \u00bd x \u00bd cm on the left side of upper
\n                  part of chest above the left nipple. The margins were
\n                  inverted. There was no blackening and no tattooing were
\n                  seen. Wounds entered in the chest cavity and small
\n                  pallets were found in the chest cavity (Entry wounds)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.    There was one small lacerated wound \u00bd x \u00bd cm on the
\n                  front of left arm. In the deltoid area, the margins were
\n                  inverted. There was no blackening and tattooing seen.
\n                  The wound entered into the deltoid muscles and making
\n                  an exit wound \u00be cm x \u00be cm on the back of left arm with
\n                  everted margins.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4.    Incised wound 15 cm x 3 cm was present on the head,
\n                  fore-head, on the nose, underneath bones were cut, brain
\n                  was injured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
             5.    There was incised wound 14 cm x 2 cm on the left side
\n                   of face and forehead and head underneath bones were
\n                   fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.    There was incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of
\n                   forehead underneath bones were fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             7.    There was incised wound 15 cm x 2 cm on the right side
\n                   of head and over the right ear, skull was fractured, brain
\n                   was injured and clotted blood was present in skull cavity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8.    There was incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the mouth,
\n                   cutting both the lips and mandible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             9.    Incised wound 2 \u00bd cm x 1 cm was present on the right
\n                   side of forehead.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries<\/p>\n
No.4 to 9 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury on the abdomen<\/p>\n
was with the blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to<\/p>\n
haemorrhage shock, resulting from the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the<\/p>\n
deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.<\/p>\n
On the same date at about 4.00 p.m., he also conducted post-mortem on the<\/p>\n
dead body of Bikramjit Singh aged 22 years and noticed the following<\/p>\n
injuries on his body :\n<\/p>\n
             “1.   There was lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm on the left side
\n                   of lower part of chest. It was near the mid line. It was
\n                   near the sternum. The wound entered into a chest cavity
\n                   and abdomen. There were abrasions and grease collar
\n                   were seen around the margin of wound. The margins of
\n                   the wound were inverted, irregular. It was contact wound
\n                   entry. The Liver, heart and left lung were showing small
\n                   holes, pallets were removed from the heart and lung.
\n                   Wad was also found in the chest cavity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.    Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm was present on the back
\n                   side of abdomen. The margin of the wound was inverted,
\n                   ragged, torn, irregular and abraded collar was seen.
\n                   Wound entered into the abdomen. The wad with the
\n                   pallets were found in the abdomen cavity and in the
\n                   vertebrae. The spinal cord was injured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.    There was lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the back of
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
                   right fore-arm. Half of the wound was having inverted
\n                   margin and lower half of the wound was having everted
\n                   margin. The muscle, the skin and vessels were missing in
\n                   the wound. There was no blackening and no tattooing
\n                   was seen around the wound.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4.     There was lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm on the back of
\n                   left hand near the little and ring finger. The margin was
\n                   inverted, torn, ragged, irregular. The wound open end on
\n                   the palmar aspect of left hand making an exit wound 6
\n                   cm x 6 cm with everted margins.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5.     There was incised wound 4 cm x 4 cm was present on the
\n                   right cheek.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6.     There was incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm was present on the
\n                   right eye brow and underneath bone was cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7.     There was incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm on the right side
\n                   of fore-head with fractured underneath bone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            8.     Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm was present on the left eye
\n                   brow with underneath bone cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            9.     Tip of right middle finger of right hand was missing,
\n                   margins of the wound was incised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            10.    There were multiple contusions on the left arm, on the
\n                   left fore-arm and on the back of left hand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            11.    There was incised wound on the back of left elbow
\n                   underneath bone was cut. Pallets were removed from the
\n                   Liver.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries<\/p>\n
No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury No.10<\/p>\n
was caused with blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to<\/p>\n
shock haemorrhage, resulting from injuries to the brain.<\/p>\n
FACTS OF CROSS-VERSION :\n<\/p>\n
            Proceedings of cross-version were initiated on the basis of the<\/p>\n
statement of Mohinder Singh (Ex.P1) recorded by SI Bhag Singh in<\/p>\n
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala at 2.00 p.m. on 4.5.2001. In the said statement he<\/p>\n
stated that on the intervening night of 2\/3.5.2001, he was sleeping along
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
with his wife Harbans Kaur on the roof of his house. At about 3.00 a.m.,<\/p>\n
they heard a noise of working of the harvest combine machine in his fields.<\/p>\n
He and his wife went to the fields on foot from their house. He saw that the<\/p>\n
land which was taken by him on lease from the Gram Panchayat, in which<\/p>\n
the wheat crop was sown by him, was being harvested by Amrik Singh,<\/p>\n
Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh sons of Gurdial Singh, Vikramjit Singh,<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh, sons of Amrik Singh and Gurdial Singh, accompanied<\/p>\n
by four\/five other persons, with the help of combine. It was further stated<\/p>\n
that since he was in possession of the said land and crop was sown by him,<\/p>\n
he and his wife went to the fields to restrain the driver of the combine and<\/p>\n
asked why they were harvesting their crop. In the meantime, Amrik Singh,<\/p>\n
who was having a licensed gun, fired on him with the intention to kill him<\/p>\n
which hit on his left leg. When his wife Harbans Kaur raised voice “Mardita<\/p>\n
Mardita”, then Shavinderjit Singh gave a gun shot blow which hit on the left<\/p>\n
upper arm of his wife. Then Gurdial Singh and his sons Zora Singh and<\/p>\n
Ranjit Singh raised lalkara that they be not allowed to go scot-free. In the<\/p>\n
meantime, he fell down on the ground and became unconscious and was got<\/p>\n
admitted in the hospital. Amrik Singh and his family members forcibly<\/p>\n
harvested his crop in connivance with each other, therefore, action be taken<\/p>\n
against them.\n<\/p>\n
            In the police proceeding, it has been recorded that on 3.5.2001,<\/p>\n
two injured, namely, Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur were<\/p>\n
admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, but their statements could not be<\/p>\n
recorded because they were not fit to make their statements. On 4.5.2001,<\/p>\n
the above-said statement was recorded after obtaining the opinion of the<\/p>\n
doctor about the fitness of Mohinder Singh to make the statement. On the
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of the said statement, a cross-version was registered against four<\/p>\n
persons, namely, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Zora Singh and<\/p>\n
Ranjit Singh under Sections 307,447,379,511,148,149 IPC and under<\/p>\n
Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
MEDICAL EVIDENCE :\n<\/p>\n
            On 3.5.2001 at about 5.30 a.m., PW3-Dr.Gian Singh,<\/p>\n
Emergency Medical Officer,      Rajindra Hospital, Patiala medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined Mohinder Singh aged 55 years and found the following injuries<\/p>\n
on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.   3 x 3 cm lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of left
\n                  knee joint with inverted margins. The collar of the
\n                  wound was present. Advised X-ray and surgical opinion.
\n                  Fresh bleeding was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.    6 x 5 cm lacerated wound of left popletial fossa with
\n                  inverted margins which communicated injury No.1
\n                  (through and through) under lying soft tissues were
\n                  visible. X-ray and surgical opinion was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.    Complained of pain on left abdomen. Advised X-ray.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Injuries No.1 and 2 were opined to have been caused by fire-arm while<\/p>\n
injury No.3 by blunt weapon. On the same date and the same time he also<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined Harbans Kaur aged 55 years and found the<\/p>\n
following two injuries on her person:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.   6 x 3 cm lacerated wound on lateral aspect of left arm in
\n                  its middle. Collar of the wound was present with
\n                  blackish margin. Proving not done. Fresh bleeding was
\n                  present. Advised X-ray and surgical opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.    .5 x .5 cm penetrating wound with blackish margin on
\n                  lateral aspect of left index finger at the base. Advised X-
\n                  ray.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Injuries No.1 and 2 were subject to x-ray and surgical opinion. In his<\/p>\n
opinion, the probable time of duration was within six hours. The weapon
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
used for these injuries was fire-arm.\n<\/p>\n
POLICE INVESTIGATION :\n<\/p>\n
            In the main case during investigation the blood stained earth<\/p>\n
from near the dead-bodies of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh were taken<\/p>\n
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P26 and sent for analysis. Two live<\/p>\n
cartridges and fourteen empty cartridges, which were inscribed with the<\/p>\n
mark KF of 12 bore and one lid plastic of red colour were also taken into<\/p>\n
possession vide recovery memo Ex.P27. Two live cartridges and fourteen<\/p>\n
empty cartridges, which were inscribed with the mark KF of 12 bore and<\/p>\n
one lid plastic of red colour were also taken into possession vide recovery<\/p>\n
memo Ex.P28. One combine harvester and tractor-trolley along with its<\/p>\n
engine were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P29. One<\/p>\n
kirpan along with its cover, one toka, one gandasa, one dang, one iron pipe<\/p>\n
and one stick were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P30.<\/p>\n
From the hospital, the clothes of deceased Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh<\/p>\n
in two parcels duly sealed by the doctor were also taken into possession<\/p>\n
vide recovery memo Ex.P31. Vide said recovery memo, two plastic<\/p>\n
containers containing pallets and lid were also taken into possession.<\/p>\n
            During the investigation, the accused were arrested. From<\/p>\n
accused Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan, on the basis of his disclosure statement<\/p>\n
(Ex.P33), one dang was recovered from a room of his residential house vide<\/p>\n
recovery memo Ex.P37. From accused Balwinder Singh @ Bindi, on the<\/p>\n
basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.P34), a .12 bore DBBL gun along with<\/p>\n
its licence was recovered from his residential house vide recovery memo<\/p>\n
Ex.P39.   From accused Narinder Singh @ Ninder, on the basis of his<\/p>\n
disclosure statement (Ex.P35), one tangli was recovered from a room of his
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
house vide recovery memo Ex.P38. From accused Gurdial Singh, one spade<\/p>\n
of the size of 3 \u00bc ft. after taking it out with his own hand, from the cattle<\/p>\n
shed in his house, was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P43. From<\/p>\n
accused Binder Singh, a 12 bore DBBL gun along with its licence was got<\/p>\n
recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P44. On 29.6.2001, accused Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh, who was admitted in the hospital, was arrested after his discharge<\/p>\n
from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. During interrogation, he had stated that a<\/p>\n
gun was lying in his house. On his statement, one DBBL gun along with its<\/p>\n
licence lying in his house was taken into possession vide recovery memo<\/p>\n
Ex.P45. During investigation, Shavinderjit Singh was also arrested in cross-<\/p>\n
version case and on his disclosure statement, a .315 bore rifle was got<\/p>\n
recovered from the almirah in a room of his house vide recovery memo<\/p>\n
Ex.P9. During investigation, the documents regarding possession of the<\/p>\n
parties on the disputed land were       also taken into possession and the<\/p>\n
statements of various persons were recorded.\n<\/p>\n
            After the investigation, the challan was filed only against<\/p>\n
twelve accused and initially charges were framed against them, but<\/p>\n
subsequently after examination of some prosecution witnesses, on an<\/p>\n
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., other nineteen accused were<\/p>\n
summoned to face the trial. Charges were also framed against them to which<\/p>\n
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
            In the cross-version, on 5.12.2001, accused Gobind Singh,<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh were arrested. Gurdial Singh accused<\/p>\n
produced the licence of .315 bore rifle, which was taken into possession<\/p>\n
vide recovery memo Ex.P11. After investigation, the challan was filed<\/p>\n
against Shavinderjit Singh, Ramanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh. Thereafter,
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
Zora Singh, Gobind Singh and Gurdial Singh were summoned under<\/p>\n
Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charges were also framed against them. During the<\/p>\n
pendency of the case, Gobind Singh and Gurdial Singh had died and Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh had become medically unfit to depose during the trial.<\/p>\n
EVIDENCE LED IN BOTH THE CASES :\n<\/p>\n
            In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16<\/p>\n
witnesses in the main case out of which PW11-Ranjit Singh, injured, PW12-<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh, injured and PW13-Ramandeep Singh, who was present<\/p>\n
at the time of the alleged occurrence, though not injured, PW14-Dr.<\/p>\n
O.P.Aggarwal, PW15-Inspector Sewa Singh and PW16-Bhupinderjit Singh<\/p>\n
Virk are the material witnesses, who supported the prosecution version. In<\/p>\n
cross-version, total 12 prosecution witnesses were examined, including<\/p>\n
PW1-Mohinder Singh, PW3-Dr.Gian Singh, PW4-Ashok Kumar, PW5-<\/p>\n
Harbans Kaur (injured), PW7-Charanjot Singh Walia, PW8-Dr.Gurinder<\/p>\n
Singh Mann, PW9-Bhupinderjit Singh Virk and PW10-Bhag Singh are the<\/p>\n
relevant witnesses, who supported the cross-version given by Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            The accused in the main case in their statements under Section<\/p>\n
313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded the cross-<\/p>\n
version as their defence. In defence, the accused examined DW1-Dr.Ruby<\/p>\n
Oberoi, who conducted x-ray, DW2-Dr.GianSingh, who medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined Mohinder Singh, DW3-Dr.Gurinder Singh Mann, in order to<\/p>\n
prove the bed head tickets of Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur, and DW4-<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            In the cross-version, accused Shavinderjit Singh in his<\/p>\n
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that he is innocent and was
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
falsely implicated. He stated that his cousin Ramandeep Singh, uncles<\/p>\n
Ranjit Singh and Zora Singh are also innocent and falsely implicated. All<\/p>\n
the accused gave the version of the main case as their defence and stated<\/p>\n
that they had suffered fire-arm injuries and other injuries by deadly weapons<\/p>\n
caused by Mohinder Singh and other accused in the main case. In defence,<\/p>\n
they have examined DW1-Satish Grover, GA to Registrar, Punjab and<\/p>\n
Haryana High Court in order to prove that Ranjit Singh filed<\/p>\n
Crl.Misc.petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which the order dated<\/p>\n
17.1.2002 was passed directing Sewa Singh and others not to investigate in<\/p>\n
the cross-version. DW2-Jang Singh, SSO, Central Telegraph Office, Patiala,<\/p>\n
in order to prove that a telegram was sent to higher officials that the accused<\/p>\n
party was interfering in their peaceful possessio with the help of police and<\/p>\n
they are preventing them to cut their crop. DW3-Dr.O.P.Aggarwal, who<\/p>\n
conducted post-mortem of the dead-bodies of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit<\/p>\n
Singh. DW4-Dr.Harminder Singh, EMO, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, who<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined Ranjit Singh and also examined Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh on 3.5.2001. DW5-Ashok Kumar, Clerk, DTO Office, Patiala, who<\/p>\n
deposed that the owner of Tata Indica Car is Mohinder Singh and DW6-<\/p>\n
Shavinder Singh.\n<\/p>\n
MOTIVE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME :\n<\/p>\n
            The dispute between the parties was with regard to the land<\/p>\n
measuring 22 bighas 18 biswas which was belonging to the Gram Panchayat<\/p>\n
being Shamlat Deh. Gurdial Singh and his family (complainant party)<\/p>\n
claimed that they were in possession of the said land for the last many years<\/p>\n
and even before the year 1950. Therefore, the said land does not vest in the<\/p>\n
Gram Panchayat and they have become its owners. It is their case that on
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                          -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
3.5.2001 at about 4.30\/5.00 a.m., when they were harvesting the wheat crop,<\/p>\n
the accused came with deadly weapons and committed the alleged crime.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Mohinder Singh (accused side) claimed that the said land<\/p>\n
was a Shamlat Deh and belong to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat<\/p>\n
auctioned the said land on 20.6.2000 and in the said auction he had taken<\/p>\n
the same on lease, and after payment of the lease amount he was put in<\/p>\n
possession of the same. Thereafter, he had sown one-two crops and when<\/p>\n
the last crop was ripe for cultivation, the complainant party illegally and<\/p>\n
without any authority came to the said land at 3.00 a.m. on 3.5.2001 with<\/p>\n
combine harvester and when he opposed, then they caused injuries to them<\/p>\n
by fire arms.\n<\/p>\n
            In this case certain documents have been produced on record by<\/p>\n
the prosecution as well as defence in order to establish respective<\/p>\n
possession of the parties. From accused side, the proceedings of the auction<\/p>\n
conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 20.6.2000 have been placed on record<\/p>\n
which was signed by Amrik Singh deceased as one of the participant in<\/p>\n
auction. The extract of lease register which indicates that Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
was the highest bidder whose bid was accepted. The resolution of the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat dated 20.4.2001 where the Gram Panchayat resolved that the land<\/p>\n
measuring 22 bighas 15 biswas which was given on lease to Mohinder<\/p>\n
Singh for the year 2000-01 on which he had sown the wheat crop, he be<\/p>\n
permitted to cut his crop and Amrik Singh, who was unnecessarily<\/p>\n
interfering must be restrained from harvesting the wheat crop and in this<\/p>\n
regard a request was made to the police for help and for deputing Duty<\/p>\n
Magistrate to get   the crop harvested by Mohinder Singh. A copy of<\/p>\n
Pattanama is in favour of Mohinder Singh. Further it has also been brought
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -20-<\/span><\/p>\n
on record that the Gram Panchayat filed an application for eviction against<\/p>\n
Gurdial Singh under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands<\/p>\n
(Regulation) Act, 1961 and thereafter Gurdial Singh filed a title suit under<\/p>\n
the said Act and in that suit the order of status-quo was passed. Copies of<\/p>\n
the Jamabandi as well as the girdawari regarding the said land have also<\/p>\n
been produced by the prosecution in which Gurdial Singh was recorded in<\/p>\n
possession of the land. Initially, the suit under Section 11 of the said Act<\/p>\n
was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 18.2.2003, however, in that<\/p>\n
suit a finding was recorded that the possession of Gurdial Singh on the<\/p>\n
disputed land is not since 1950, but from 8-9 years. It has been stated by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the complainant that the said order of the Collector was<\/p>\n
set aside by this Court in which a finding has been recorded that Gurdial<\/p>\n
Singh was in possession of the suit land before 1950 and after recording the<\/p>\n
said finding the matter has been remanded.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that<\/p>\n
in this case proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated prior to<\/p>\n
the date of occurrence. Finally on 27.12.2004, in those proceedings<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh was found to be in possession of the suit land as a lessee of<\/p>\n
the Gram Panchayat on the date of initiation of those proceedings.<\/p>\n
            It is pertinent to mention that accused Binder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Banta Singh has expired during the pendency of Crl.Appeal No.585-DB of<\/p>\n
2004.\n<\/p>\n
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT :\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties,<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that prima-facie Gurdial Singh was in cultivating<\/p>\n
possession of the disputed land. Further, while relying upon the statements
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                              -21-<\/span><\/p>\n
of PW12-Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh and other<\/p>\n
connected evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the alleged incident had occurred in two parts. In the first<\/p>\n
part, twenty one accused, who were not armed with any fire-arm, had<\/p>\n
participated, out of them, one accused, namely, Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch was<\/p>\n
having the right of private defence to protect the property of the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat and the remaining accused committed the offence of rioting.<\/p>\n
Therefore, they were convicted under Section 148 IPC. As far as nine<\/p>\n
accused are concerned, who were armed with fire-arms, out of them, eight<\/p>\n
accused, namely, Mohinder Singh son of Banta Singh, Binder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Banta, Gurdial Singh son of Jagat Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial<\/p>\n
Singh, Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda son of Chotta Singh and Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh son of Gurdev Singh were convicted under Section 302 IPC for<\/p>\n
committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh, whereas<\/p>\n
accused Samittar Kaur, whose alleged pistol was not recovered and did not<\/p>\n
cause any fatal injury, was convicted under Section 148 IPC and not under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC. Accused Harbans Kaur, who admittedly went along with<\/p>\n
her husband, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with<\/p>\n
Section 149 IPC. Accused Mohinder Singh, Binder Singh and Balwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, who were armed with fire-arms, were convicted under Section 307<\/p>\n
IPC and accused Gurdial Singh, Makhan Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju,<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda         and Amrik Singh were convicted under<\/p>\n
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
            In the cross case, the trial Court, after recording the finding that<\/p>\n
though the accused party was in possession of the land in dispute, which
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -22-<\/span><\/p>\n
belonged to the Gram Panchayat, but they were not justified in using fire-<\/p>\n
arms and causing fire-arm injuries to the injured, convicted Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh under Section 307 IPC and his co-accused Ramandeep Singh under<\/p>\n
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Zora Singh, who was initially found<\/p>\n
innocent by the police and was later on summoned under Section 319<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., was convicted under Section 148 IPC. Co-accused Ranjit Singh<\/p>\n
was acquitted while giving him the benefit of doubt. So far as the other<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 379, 447 read with Section 149 were concerned, the<\/p>\n
same were held to be not made out. Accused Shavinderjit Singh was also<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
ARGUMENTS :\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the instant case<\/p>\n
is a case of massive exaggeration. The complainant while intimating the<\/p>\n
prosecution version has falsely implicated thirty-one persons of the village,<\/p>\n
including its Sarpanch. The complainant and the alleged eye-witnesses of<\/p>\n
the occurrence have attributed nine fire-arms to nine accused and various<\/p>\n
other weapons to the other accused, though during the investigation only<\/p>\n
three fire-arms and few other arms, i.e., dang, gandasa and toka were<\/p>\n
recovered vide recovery memos Ex.P39, Ex.P45, Ex.P9 and Ex.P30. It was<\/p>\n
further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses levelled omnibus<\/p>\n
allegations against the accused. No specific role to each of the accused was<\/p>\n
pointed out. It is further argued that for the complainant’s side, deceased<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh received three fire-arm injuries and six other injuries out of<\/p>\n
which one was from sharp-edged weapon and five were from blunt weapon,<\/p>\n
whereas deceased Vikramjit Singh got four fire-arm injuries and seven other<\/p>\n
injuries out of which six were from sharp-edged weapon and one was from
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -23-<\/span><\/p>\n
blunt weapon. The other two witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11) and<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) received six and five injuries, respectively, from<\/p>\n
the sharp-edged and blunt weapons. They did not receive any fire-arm<\/p>\n
injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution version is a<\/p>\n
concocted version in which thirty-one persons have been falsely implicated<\/p>\n
taking benefit of the delay in registration of the FIR. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the alleged incident had taken place at 3.00 a.m. on 3.5.2001<\/p>\n
whereas the statement of PW11-Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and<\/p>\n
formal FIR was registered at 10.00 a.m. He submitted that as per the<\/p>\n
statement of PW13-Ramandeep Singh, the police came at the occurrence at<\/p>\n
8.00 a.m., but the statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and<\/p>\n
during this period the prosecution version was concocted. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
further submitted that the possession of the land in question was with<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat and he had sown the<\/p>\n
wheat crop, and Gurdial Singh and others were not legally justified to cut<\/p>\n
the crop from the land in question. It is further argued that all the three<\/p>\n
alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh and<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh are not trustworthy as they belong to one family. PW12-<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh made major improvements<\/p>\n
in their version while deposing in the court. These witnesses initially did not<\/p>\n
attribute individual weapon to each of the accused but in the court these<\/p>\n
witnesses gave entirely different version with regard to holding of the<\/p>\n
weapons by the accused. Learned counsel further argued that both the<\/p>\n
witnesses in their statements had stated that Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh received fire-arm injuries, but as per the medical evidence these two<\/p>\n
witnesses have not received any fire-arm injuries as all the injuries on their
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -24-<\/span><\/p>\n
person are from sharp or blunt weapons. This fact also indicates that these<\/p>\n
witnesses have not correctly and truly deposed in the court. Therefore, their<\/p>\n
statements are not reliable.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in this<\/p>\n
case all the material witnesses belong to one family and in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, their testimony is not credible. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that undisputedly at the time of the alleged occurrence, the owner<\/p>\n
of the combine and four-five other persons were present, but neither the<\/p>\n
prosecution during investigation had associated them nor examined any one<\/p>\n
of them as witnesses in the court in support of the prosecution version.<\/p>\n
Therefore, non-examination of the independent witnesses creates a doubt in<\/p>\n
the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the appellants further<\/p>\n
submitted that the prosecution has not explained the fire arm injuries<\/p>\n
received by Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur and has suppressed<\/p>\n
the real genesis of the alleged occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel further argued that as far as twenty one<\/p>\n
accused are concerned (who have filed Crl.Appeals No.1362-SB of 2004<\/p>\n
and 1388-SB of 2004), the trial Court has wrongly convicted them under<\/p>\n
Section 148 IPC and sentenced for three years for the offence of rioting<\/p>\n
being armed with deadly weapons while considering them as members of<\/p>\n
unlawful assembly, particularly when they did not cause any injury to any<\/p>\n
person and no weapon whatsoever was recovered from any of them.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in<\/p>\n
cross-case the accused have fully established that the alleged occurrence<\/p>\n
had started at 3.00 a.m. when Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur<\/p>\n
went to the fields and objected to the harvesting of crop by the
\n              Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -25-<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant’s side and at that time deceased Amrik Singh and his son<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh caused fire arm injuries to them. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
evidence led in the cross-case, the trial Court, after proving the guilt against<\/p>\n
accused Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh and             Zora Singh,     has<\/p>\n
convicted them. This fact itself demolishes the prosecution version in the<\/p>\n
main case.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, Shri Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the accused side was<\/p>\n
the aggressor as complainant’s side was in lawful possession of the land and<\/p>\n
they were legally cutting the crop sown by them when the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel submitted that the cross-<\/p>\n
version given by the accused was totally false and concocted and the same<\/p>\n
was got registered in connivance with the police subsequently after<\/p>\n
registration of the main case, in order to take defence in the main case. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that at 3.00 a.m. no occurrence had taken place and no<\/p>\n
injury was caused by Amrik Singh and his son Shavinderjit Singh to<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur. Rather, they themselves<\/p>\n
received the injuries at the time of the occurrence which had taken place at<\/p>\n
4.30 a.m. when nine persons were using the fire arms. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that all the thirty one persons had come at the place of occurrence in the<\/p>\n
shape of unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with a common object to<\/p>\n
cause fatal injuries to the complainant’s side in order to prevent them from<\/p>\n
cutting the wheat crop and dispossessing them from the land in question.<\/p>\n
Therefore, all the appellants were liable to be convicted for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the trial Court has<\/p>\n
committed grave illegality while acquitting twenty one accused for the said
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -26-<\/span><\/p>\n
offence and only convicting them for a lesser offence under Section 148<\/p>\n
IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of the three prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, i.e., Ranjit Singh (PW11), Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) and<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh (PW13), who are the injured witnesses, cannot be<\/p>\n
discarded only on the ground that they are related witnesses or on the<\/p>\n
ground that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the accused.<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel further submitted that the three accused,<\/p>\n
namely, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh have been<\/p>\n
wrongly convicted under Section 307 IPC. Actually, they did not commit<\/p>\n
any offence.\n<\/p>\n
DECISION IN THE MAIN CASE:\n<\/p>\n
               From the medical evidence available on the record, it has been<\/p>\n
proved that two persons, namely, Amrik Singh son of Gurdial Singh and<\/p>\n
Vikramjit Singh had died on 3.5.2001 due to haemorrhage shock, resulting<\/p>\n
from gun shot and other injuries suffered by them. During post-mortem,<\/p>\n
nine injuries were found on the body of deceased Amrik Singh, out of<\/p>\n
which, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire arm whereas injuries No.4 to<\/p>\n
9 by sharp edged and blunt weapons. On the body of deceased Vikramjit<\/p>\n
Singh, 11 injuries were found, out of which, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused<\/p>\n
with fire arm whereas injuries No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused by sharp<\/p>\n
edged weapon and injury No.10 was caused by blunt weapon. Two persons,<\/p>\n
namely, Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh were also medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined on 3.5.2001 at 5.30 a.m. by Dr. Harminder Singh (PW3) and he<\/p>\n
found six injuries which were declared simple in nature on the person of<\/p>\n
Ranjit Singh and five injuries, which were declared simple in nature on the<\/p>\n
person of Shavinderjit Singh. None of the injuries of these two injured was
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -27-<\/span><\/p>\n
from fire arms. The injuries on their bodies were either by sharp edged or<\/p>\n
blunt weapon. It has also been proved that on the same date at 5.30 a.m.,<\/p>\n
Dr.Gian Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined Mohinder Singh (accused) and Harbans Kaur<\/p>\n
(accused) and on their person two gun shot injuries each were found. As per<\/p>\n
the opinion of the doctor, the probable time of those injuries was within six<\/p>\n
hours.Thus, it is clear that two persons from the complainant’s side and two<\/p>\n
persons from accused side were admitted in the hospital in injured condition<\/p>\n
at the same time and were medico-legally examined, and the post mortem<\/p>\n
examination of two dead persons was conducted on that date and as per the<\/p>\n
opinion of the doctor, they had received injuries by fire arm, sharp edged<\/p>\n
and blunt weapons.\n<\/p>\n
            Now it is to be seen how, where and by whom those injuries<\/p>\n
were caused to them. In this regard, both the parties have given different<\/p>\n
version. According to the complainant Ranjit Singh (injured), the<\/p>\n
occurrence had taken place at 4.30 a.m. when he, deceased Amrik Singh and<\/p>\n
his son Vikramjit Singh (deceased), Shavinderjit Singh (injured)         and<\/p>\n
nephews Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Singh were harvesting the wheat<\/p>\n
crop sown by them in the field in question, with the help of combine<\/p>\n
harvester. According to him, at that time all the thirty one accused armed<\/p>\n
with deadly weapons suddenly came there and caused death of Amrik Singh<\/p>\n
and his son Vikramjit Singh by using the fire arms and other deadly<\/p>\n
weapons and also caused injuries to him (Ranjit Singh) and Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh with their respective weapons with motive not to permit them in<\/p>\n
cutting the crop and forcibly dispossess them from the land in question. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, accused Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur stated
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -28-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 3.00 a.m. on the same date.<\/p>\n
According to them, when at 3.00 a.m. they had heard the noise of working<\/p>\n
of the harvest combine machine on the land, which they had taken on lease<\/p>\n
from the Gram Panchayat, they went to the spot and saw that Amrik Singh,<\/p>\n
Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh and Gurdial<\/p>\n
Singh, accompanied by four\/five other persons, were harvesting the crop<\/p>\n
with the help of combine. When they objected to the cutting of the crop by<\/p>\n
them, Amrik Singh and Shavinderjit Singh, who were armed with gun, fired<\/p>\n
at them with intention to kill them. On receiving the gun shot injuries, they<\/p>\n
fell down and became unconscious.\n<\/p>\n
            Thus, it appears that neither the complainant’s side nor the<\/p>\n
accused side have given any version how the other side had received<\/p>\n
injuries. We are of the opinion that both the sides have not stated the true<\/p>\n
facts about the manner in which the occurrence had actually taken place in<\/p>\n
their respective version. The witnesses examined by both the sides in their<\/p>\n
respective cases have suppressed the true facts about the manner in which<\/p>\n
the occurrence had actually taken place. From various documents available<\/p>\n
on the record regarding the land in question, one thing is clear that there<\/p>\n
was a dispute between both the parties about the ownership and possession<\/p>\n
of the said land. The complainant claimed this land being owned by them on<\/p>\n
the basis of their long possession, and on the other hand the accused side<\/p>\n
claimed to be in possession of this land being lessee of the Gram Panchayat.<\/p>\n
According to them, the land is Shamlat Deh which vests in the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat, and was leased out to them by the Gram Panchayat in a public<\/p>\n
auction. Some of the documents available on the record show the<\/p>\n
complainant’s side in possession of the suit land, and some other documents
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -29-<\/span><\/p>\n
show that the land was belonging to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat had leased out the same for cultivation to Mohinder Singh in a<\/p>\n
public auction. Even before the date of occurrence, the land was attached in<\/p>\n
a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which later on finally decided on<\/p>\n
27.12.2004. However, on the record there are certain orders vide which the<\/p>\n
order of status-quo was passed with regard to the possession of the suit land.<\/p>\n
But the fact remains that at the time of occurrence, there was serious dispute<\/p>\n
about the possession of this land between both the parties.<\/p>\n
            Surprisingly, in this case neither the complainant nor the<\/p>\n
accused have taken the plea of private defence against the accusations<\/p>\n
levelled against them. Both the parties have given their independent version.<\/p>\n
            After going through the statements of PW11-Ranjit Singh,<\/p>\n
PW12-Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh (though not injured<\/p>\n
but was present at the time of the alleged occurrence), we are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that they have given the exaggerated version of the whole occurrence. In<\/p>\n
their version, they have implicated 31 persons, who according to them came<\/p>\n
at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons, out of which, nine persons<\/p>\n
were armed with pistol and guns. Their statements are contrary to the<\/p>\n
medical evidence. According to them, Shavinderjit Singh was also caused<\/p>\n
fire arm injuries by the accused but in the medical examination of<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh, no fire arm injury was found on his person. The trial<\/p>\n
Court has also not totally believed their version. Similarly, Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
and Harbans Kaur stated that they had received the gun shot injuries at 3.00<\/p>\n
a.m. when they objected to the complainant party to harvest the crop sown<\/p>\n
by them on the land taken by them on lease and thereafter they became<\/p>\n
unconscious. But he has not made clear how from the complainant’s side
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -30-<\/span><\/p>\n
two persons have died and two got injured. Thus, we are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
both the parties have embellished the actual occurrence by making false<\/p>\n
embroideries to it, and there are discrepancies in the evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses. We are also not in a position to totally disbelieve<\/p>\n
either the prosecution version or the defence version. In such facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances, a duty is cast on the Court to separate the chaff from the<\/p>\n
grain in order to reach the truth. Though the instant case may be baffling,<\/p>\n
but it cannot be said that it is so confusing and conflicting that the process<\/p>\n
of separating the chaff from the grain cannot be reasonably carried out.<\/p>\n
Keeping in view this principle, we have carefully examined the evidence led<\/p>\n
by the prosecution as well as the defence and have come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the alleged occurrence had started on 3.5.2001 at 3.00 a.m. when<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh, Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh<\/p>\n
and Gurdial Singh, accompanied by four\/five other persons, were harvesting<\/p>\n
the crop with the help of combine in the field. At that time, Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
and Harbans Kaur appeared to have come on the scene of occurrence. They<\/p>\n
had objected to the harvesting of crop and in that altercation deceased<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh and Shavinderjit Singh fired shots at them from their guns. In<\/p>\n
this case, two guns have been recovered from the complainant’s side. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, at that time Mohinder Singh was not armed with any weapon.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it cannot be said that Amrik Singh deceased and Shavinderjit<\/p>\n
Singh used fire arms in their self defence. Immediately after the said<\/p>\n
occurrence, accused Amrik Singh son of Gurdev Singh, his son Rajinder<\/p>\n
Singh @ Raju, Binder Singh son of Banta Singh, Jaswant Singh, Makhan<\/p>\n
Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh appeared to have come on the<\/p>\n
scene with deadly weapons and caused injuries to deceased Amrik Singh
\n              Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                         -31-<\/span><\/p>\n
and Vikramjit Singh without any sudden provocation. Further, we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that all the eight persons were not armed with guns as stated by the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses. The other accused appeared to have been armed with<\/p>\n
sharp edged and blunt weapons like Kulhari, gandasis and lathis. In the<\/p>\n
subsequent occurrence only seven persons had participated, who caused<\/p>\n
injuries to the deceased as well as two injured persons. Mohinder Singh and<\/p>\n
his wife Harbans Kaur were already lying injured at the spot. We are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that all the aforesaid seven persons were having no right of private<\/p>\n
defence and they were not justified to cause fire arm injuries to<\/p>\n
complainant’s side while seeing them harvesting the wheat crop from the<\/p>\n
field with the help of combine. Thus, they have committed the alleged<\/p>\n
crime. Rest of the twenty one persons came on the scene later on without<\/p>\n
any arms and object and by making the exaggerated version the complainant<\/p>\n
as well as two other eye-witnesses have named them as members of<\/p>\n
unlawful assembly, who came on the scene with deadly weapons and with a<\/p>\n
common object to commit the alleged crime. During the investigation, no<\/p>\n
weapon was recovered from these twenty one persons. Thus, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
the omnibus allegations levelled by prosecution witnesses Ranjit Singh,<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh and Ramandeep Singh that all the thirty one accused<\/p>\n
with deadly weapons, out of which nine were armed with gun and pistol,<\/p>\n
participated in the occurrence and caused injuries to the deceased and<\/p>\n
injured are highly improbable and difficult to accept. Looking to the damage<\/p>\n
caused to either side, it cannot be believed that thirty one persons had<\/p>\n
participated in the alleged occurrence in the manner as stated by these<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
             Immediately after the occurrence when the police went to the
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -32-<\/span><\/p>\n
spot only one Kirpan with its cover, one toka, one gandasa, one dang and<\/p>\n
one iron pipe and one stick were taken into possession by PW15-Sewa<\/p>\n
Singh, SHO, P.S.Sadar, Patiala in presence of SI Bhag Singh and Gobind<\/p>\n
Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P30. Further during the investigation, on the<\/p>\n
disclosure statement made by accused Narinder Singh @ Ninder, one tangli<\/p>\n
was recovered from his house vide recovery memo Ex.P38 and from<\/p>\n
accused Gurdial Singh, one spade was recovered from the cattle shed of his<\/p>\n
house vide recovery memo Ex.P43. These recoveries further prove the<\/p>\n
exaggeration made by the three witnesses about the number of persons who<\/p>\n
participated in the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
            In this region, riots resulting in serious injuries or even death<\/p>\n
are of frequent occurrence. A large number of persons is generally involved<\/p>\n
and the evidence is often entirely of a partisan character. There is great<\/p>\n
danger of innocent persons being implicated along with the guilty, owing to<\/p>\n
the tendency of the parties in such cases to try to implicate falsely as many<\/p>\n
of their enemies as they can. Therefore, in such cases the Court is required<\/p>\n
to be careful while evaluating and analysing the prosecution as well as the<\/p>\n
defence witnesses\/evidence.\n<\/p>\n
            In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated<\/p>\n
the version and appeared to have implicated all the family members and<\/p>\n
close relatives of Mohinder Singh. When initially the FIR was registered, no<\/p>\n
specific arm was attributed to any particular person and only omnibus<\/p>\n
allegations were levelled, but while appearing in the court, each of the<\/p>\n
accused has been attributed a weapon. Ranjit Singh (complainant) in his<\/p>\n
statement before the police, on the basis of which the formal FIR was<\/p>\n
registered, levelled omnibus allegations regarding firing against the accused
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                             -33-<\/span><\/p>\n
armed with fire arms. According to him, they fired shots hitting Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh. Regarding other accused,<\/p>\n
who were armed with other weapons, he did not attribute any specific<\/p>\n
weapon or role to anyone. In the court while appearing as PW11, Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh improved his version and attributed specific weapon to each of the<\/p>\n
accused. He improved his version to the effect that he along with Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh received gun shot injuries,<\/p>\n
whereas as per the medical evidence neither Shavinderjit Singh nor Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh suffered any gun shot injuries. Further, Shavinderjit Singh while<\/p>\n
appearing in the Court as PW12 as injured eye-witness, stated that<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and Binder Singh gave rifle shots on the heart of deceased<\/p>\n
Amrik Singh and Gurdial Singh gave rifle shot on the back of Vikramjit<\/p>\n
Singh. This witness has attributed specific injuries to both the deceased and<\/p>\n
injured by all the eight accused, though no such attribution was made in the<\/p>\n
initial statement before the police. Thus, in our opinion, out of nine persons<\/p>\n
initially named, who came on the spot with fire arm, only three persons<\/p>\n
were having the arms and the rest appear to have been armed with other<\/p>\n
weapons. Out of them, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were already<\/p>\n
present at the time of occurrence and they were lying unconscious due to the<\/p>\n
fire arm injuries received by them. In our opinion, twenty one persons from<\/p>\n
whom no arm was recovered, did not cause any injury either to the deceased<\/p>\n
or the injured or any person. This finding has also been recorded by the trial<\/p>\n
Court. But all these persons have been punished under Section 148 IPC<\/p>\n
after coming to the conclusion that they were the members of the unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly and after coming on the scene when they saw that the other side<\/p>\n
was having the arms, they had gone from the spot without using any arm
\n             Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -34-<\/span><\/p>\n
and causing injury to any person. In our opinion, all these twenty one<\/p>\n
persons did not come on the place of occurrence collectively as an unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly with an object to cause injuries to the complainant’s side. Initially<\/p>\n
in this case the police filed challan against twelve persons, including eight<\/p>\n
persons mentioned above and four other ladies who have been convicted by<\/p>\n
the trial Court under Section 148 IPC, rest of the accused, i.e. eighteen in<\/p>\n
numbers, were found innocent, but merely on the statement of three<\/p>\n
witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11), Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) and<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh (PW13), nineteen more accused were summoned, who<\/p>\n
also faced the trial and were convicted only under Section 148 IPC. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, all the three prosecution witnesses have not correctly stated before<\/p>\n
the Court and while making exaggeration implicated those persons who had<\/p>\n
actually not participated in the alleged occurrence as members of unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly.\n<\/p>\n
            A charge of rioting with deadly weapons pre-supposes the<\/p>\n
existence of `an unlawful assembly’ with a common object as defined in<\/p>\n
Section 141 of IPC. No charge of rioting can be sustained against any<\/p>\n
person unless it is proved that he was a member of such `an unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly’, and that one or more members of the assembly used force or<\/p>\n
violence in prosecution of its common object. In the present case, we are of<\/p>\n
the opinion that twenty one accused, who have been convicted under<\/p>\n
Section 148 IPC, were not the members of unlawful assembly constituted by<\/p>\n
seven persons, excluding Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur, with a<\/p>\n
common object to cause injuries to the complainant’s side, who were<\/p>\n
cultivating the field. Therefore, their conviction under Section 148 IPC is<\/p>\n
not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                          -35-<\/span><\/p>\n
            In view of the above, the conviction of accused Amrik Singh<\/p>\n
son of Gurdev Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju, Jaswinder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Chhota Singh, Makhan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Gurdial Singh son of<\/p>\n
Jagat Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh under Section 302<\/p>\n
IPC for committing the murder of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh and<\/p>\n
sentencing them for life and a fine of Rs.5000\/- each are hereby upheld.<\/p>\n
Further, the conviction of accused Balwinder Singh under Section 307 IPC<\/p>\n
and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Amrik Singh, Rajinder @ Raju,<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh, Makhan Singh and Gurdial Singh under Section 307 read<\/p>\n
with Section 149 IPC is upheld. All the sentences shall run concurrently.<\/p>\n
The conviction of accused Mohinder Singh under Sections 302 and 307 IPC<\/p>\n
and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Harbans Kaur under Section 302 read<\/p>\n
with Section 149 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the<\/p>\n
charges as they were unconscious due to the injuries received by them at<\/p>\n
the time of the alleged occurrence in which two persons had died and two<\/p>\n
persons received injuries. The conviction of the remaining twenty one<\/p>\n
accused, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC, is<\/p>\n
also set aside and they are acquitted of the charges as against them the<\/p>\n
charge of rioting with deadly weapons has not been proved.<\/p>\n
DECISION IN THE CROSS CASE :\n<\/p>\n
            Undisputedly, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were medico-<\/p>\n
legally examined on 3.5.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. by PW3-Dr. Gian Singh,<\/p>\n
who found two fire arm injuries each on their person. In cross-case, the<\/p>\n
prosecution also examined PW2-Dr.Ruby Oberoi and PW8-Dr.Gurinder<\/p>\n
Singh Mann, who further proved that both the injured remained admitted in<\/p>\n
the hospital and were treated for the aforesaid injuries. Undisputedly
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -36-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused Mohinder Singh was arrested after his discharge from the hospital.<\/p>\n
The doctor opined that the injuries received by both the injured were by the<\/p>\n
fire arms. Thus, in our opinion, the injuries suffered by these two injured<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be self-inflicted or inflicted by a friendly hand. PW1-<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and PW5-Harbans Kaur have consistently stated in their<\/p>\n
statements before the police as well as before the Court that Amrik Singh<\/p>\n
(deceased), who was armed with rifle, gave a rifle shot on the left leg of<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh and Shavinderjit Singh gave a gun shot on the left upper<\/p>\n
arm of Harbans Kaur. Subsequently, Gurdial Singh, Zora Singh and Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh raised lalkara. Thereafter, they became unconscious. Gurdial Singh<\/p>\n
has now expired and admittedly Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh only raised<\/p>\n
lalkaras and did not   cause any injury. During the investigation, from<\/p>\n
Shavinderjit Singh, .315 bore rifle was got recovered from his room vide<\/p>\n
recovery memo Ex.P9. Another rifle which was used by Amrik Singh was<\/p>\n
also got recovered. From the statement available on the record in the cross<\/p>\n
case, it was proved that when the initial occurrence had taken place at 3.00<\/p>\n
a.m., Amrik Singh (deceased), Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh, Zora Singh, Gurdial Singh and Gobind Singh were present. Out of<\/p>\n
them, only Amrik Singh deceased and Shavinderjit Singh, who were armed<\/p>\n
with gun, caused gun shot injuries to both the injured and Gurdial Singh,<\/p>\n
Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh raised lalkaras, but no role has been attributed<\/p>\n
to Ramandeep Singh and Gobind Ram. Amrik Singh, Gobind Ram and<\/p>\n
Gurdial Singh have expired and Ranjit Singh became unfit during the trial.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the trial Court has convicted Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep<\/p>\n
Singh and Zora Singh. Ramandeep Singh even did not raise any lalkara or<\/p>\n
caused any injury. The trial Court has convicted Shavinderjit Singh for the
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                           -37-<\/span><\/p>\n
offence under Sections 307 IPC for causing gun shot injuries to the injured<\/p>\n
and also under Section 148 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, whereas<\/p>\n
Ramandeep Singh for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149<\/p>\n
IPC and Section 148 IPC, and Zora Singh has been convicted under Section<\/p>\n
148 IPC. We do not find any reason for convicting Ramandeep Singh under<\/p>\n
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC while acquitting Ranjit Singh for the<\/p>\n
same offence. Therefore, the conviction of Ramandeep Singh under Section<\/p>\n
307 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside. Further, we are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that those persons did not constitute any unlawful assembly and did not<\/p>\n
commit the offence of rioting with deadly weapons. They had assembled<\/p>\n
there to harvest the crop allegedly sown by them. It cannot be said that at<\/p>\n
that time they had constituted unlawful assembly for an illegal object.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the conviction of Ramandeep Singh Shavinderjit Singh and Zora<\/p>\n
Singh under Section 148 IPC is also not sustainable and the same is hereby<\/p>\n
set aside. However, the conviction of accused Shavinderjit Singh under<\/p>\n
Section 307 IPC and sentence for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and<\/p>\n
also conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence for three<\/p>\n
years, are upheld.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION :\n<\/p>\n
            Crl. Appeal No.572-DB of 2004 is dismissed. Crl.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.585-DB of 2004 is partly allowed. Crl.Appeal No.603-DB of 2004 is<\/p>\n
dismissed. Crl.Appeal No.646-DB of 2004 is dismissed. Crl.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1362-SB of 2004 is allowed. Crl.Appeal No.1388-SB of 2004 is<\/p>\n
allowed. Crl.Appeal No.1314-SB of 2004 is partly allowed and Crl.Revision<\/p>\n
No.2410 of 2004 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellants, who are in custody and whose appeals have
\n            Crl.A. No.572-DB of 2004                            -38-<\/span><\/p>\n
been allowed and whose conviction and sentence have been set aside, be set<\/p>\n
at liberty, if not required in any other case. Similarly, the appellants, who<\/p>\n
are on bail and whose appeals have been dismissed and whose conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence have been upheld, shall surrender to custody to undergo the<\/p>\n
remainder of sentence.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                     (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)\n                                              JUDGE\n\n\n\nMarch 17, 2009                         ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )\nvkg                                           JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009 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 […]<\/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-46267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAmrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 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\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-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=\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-18T08:39:05+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=\"55 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T08:39:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":10618,\"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\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T08:39:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 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":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 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\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-18T08:39:05+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":"55 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T08:39:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009"},"wordCount":10618,"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\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009","name":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T08:39:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amrik Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 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\/46267","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=46267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}