Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmodh Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2026
CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -1
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M)
Date of Reserve:14.10.2025
Date of Decision: 19.01.2026
Uploaded on: 21.01.2026
(i) CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M)
Parmodh Kumar and Anr. ...Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(ii) CRA-D-744-DB-2004
Sansar Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Present: Mr.Karan Sharma, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae for the appellant in CRA-D-440-DB-2004.
Mr.J.S Bains, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-D-744-DB-2004.
Mr.I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. This judgement shall dispose of two criminal appeals i.e. CRA-D- 440-DB-2004 titled as "Parmodh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and CRA-D-744-DB-2004 titled as "Sansar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, whereby, the appellants have assailed the legality and correctness of impugned judgment 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:54 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -2 of conviction dated 01.04.2004 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2004, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC, the appellants have preferred the appeals before this Court.
2. The FIR (Ex.PE/2) was ordered to be registered on the basis of the statement (Ex.PE) made by Gurmel Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Ramgarh, Phagwara and the said statement has been reproduced below:-
"Stated that I am resident of above stated address.I am doing the work of agriculture. I have two sons and two daughters. My elder son Dalbir Singh @ Babu aged 30 years, who was married about 2/3 years ago. Dalbir Singh @ Babu, Parmod @ Pammi, son of Ram Parkash has kept his residence in village Palahi. He alongwith Sansar son of Santa Singh R/o Palahi and Pardeep Kumar son of Lal Chand R/o Daddal Mohalla, Phagwara were doing the work of lottery stall. My said son was giving some amount from his profit ( being the amount of committee) to Surinder @ Shodi r/o Hoshiarpur Road, Phagwara and at about 10:00 PM night time he went to his house daily in routine. Yesterday, night, my son had not reached at home and I had waited him for a sufficient time. Due to the night time, I could not search him. Then in the morning at about 09:00 AM my nephew Kamaldip Singh son of Jarnail Singh had told me that one dead body is lying in village Palahi in the fields of paddy crop. Then I accompanied him and saw that the dead body of my son Dalbir Singh was lying in the fields of Jit Singh resident of Palahi, in the fields of paddy crop at a distance of 15 feet from the road, some unknown persons had murdered my son with sharp edged weapon after giving the blows on his neck and also on the different parts of his 2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -3 body. I had left Kamaldip Singh at the spot for the safe guard of the dead body. I am going to inform the police, when you had met me on the way. Action be taken. Statement has been heard, which is correct".
3. After the registration of the case, Surjit Singh S.I along with other police officials reached at the place of recovery of dead body and inspected the site. The finger prints expert and dog squad were called and the site was inspected by senior police officers also. The inquest was conducted and a report was prepared in this regard by Surjit Singh, SI. After taking the dead body into possession, it was sent for post mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Phagwara. Even, various other articles were taken into possession from the place of recovery of dead body. During the course of investigation, on 16.08.2002, Gurmel Singh came to Surjit Singh, S.I and his supplementary statement was recorded. The statement of Gopal Singh was also recorded and both the appellants along with their co-accused Rajwinder Kaur were nominated as accused in the present case. Thereafter, the raids were conducted to arrest the accused in the present case and they were arrested on 20.08.2002. Firstly, Parmodh Kumar, appellant in CRA-D-440-DB-2004 was interrogated. Then, Sansar Singh, appellant in CRA-D-744-DB-2004 was also interrogated. In pursuance of disclosure statement (Ex.PG) suffered by Sansar Singh, appellant in CRA-D-744-DB-2004, he got recovered a dattar (sharp edged weapon) vide the recovery memo Ex.PJ and sketch of dattar Ex.PH was also prepared. The site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared. The statements of various witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the present case were also recorded. After completion of investigation in all 3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -4 respects, a final report of investigation under Section 302/34 of IPC was presented before the Area Magistrate.
4. After committal of the case, the Trial Court found a prima facie case under Section 302/34 of IPC was made out against the appellants and their co-accused Rajwinder Kaur and ordered the framing of charge, accordingly. However, the appellants pleaded that they had been falsely involved in the present case and claimed to be tried by the Trial Court.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution relied upon 14 witnesses to prove the charge against both the appellants and their co-accused.
6. The prosecution examined Malkiat Singh as PW-1, who stated that Gurmel Singh, father of the deceased/complainant was known to him as they belonged to the same village. On 26.07.2002, he gave Rs. 50,000/- to Gurmel Singh as loan and a pro-note and receipt were executed by Gurmel Singh in his favour. He misplaced the original pro-note and receipt, but a DDR No.9 dated 06.01.2003 Ex.PA was entered in this regard. The prosecution further examined Harsh Kumar as PW-2, who stated that he was running a Commission Agent shop at New Grain Market, Phagwara. Gurmel Singh and Dalbir Singh, since deceased used to bring their crop to their shop. He brought the cash book before the Court and he had paid a sum of Rs.58,639.68/ to Dalbir Singh against the sale price of the crop. He also gave a writing on letter pad of the firm Ex.PC, which was in their name. The prosecution further examined PW-3 Gurmel Singh, complainant, who reiterated the version as mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PE/2) and supported the case of the prosecution. He further stated that he made a supplementary statement about eight days after the first statement was 4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -5 recorded by the police, because at the time of recording of his initial statement (Ex.PE), he was perplexed and he also entertained a suspicion that the accused had committed the murder of his son namely Dalbir Singh on account of the reason that they would be discharged from the liability of making the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to his son Dalbir Singh.
7. The prosecution further examined Sewa Singh as PW-4, who had also given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Gurmel Singh and Dalbir Singh vide pro- note Ex.PF and receipt Ex.PF/1. The amount was taken by them as Dalbir Singh wanted to go abroad. The prosecution further examined PW-5 Baldev Singh, ASI. Sansar Singh, appellant was interrogated in his presence and in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by Sansar Singh, he got recovered a dattar from his residential house, which was taken into possession vide the memo Ex.PJ and sketch Ex.PH was prepared. The prosecution further examined PW-6 Dr. Satpal, who was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Phagwara and he along with other doctors conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Dalbir Singh at about 09:00 AM on 09.08.2002 and the Board of doctors found the following injuries on the dead body of Dalbir Singh:-
1. Incised wound with multiple cut on the front of the neck 15 cm x 8 cm insize extending upto the vertibrea, 5th and 6th vertibrea was cut. Muscles, vesels, trachaea, oesophagus were cut.
2.Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm deep on the right side of the scalp. 6 cm above the right ear. On dissection: Fracture of skull was present underlying haemotoma was present, underlying dura was injured.
3. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm with deep bone on the left side of the scalp, 1.5 cm above the left ear.
5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -6
4.Incised wound on the medial aspect of right elbow, 6 cm x 2 cm ir size, which was muscle deep.
5.Incised wound on medial aspect of left forearm which was 6cm x 1.5 cm ir size and was muscle deep above the elbow.
6.Incised wound on right thigh 5 cm above the right patella, 2.5 cm x 1 muscle deер.
7. Incised wound on left knee on the lateral side 2.5 cm x 1 cm and was muscle deep.
Rest of organs were healthy and normal.
In the opinion of the Board of doctors, the cause of death in this case was due to injury No.1 causing massive hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved on record the copy of post mortem examination report as Ex.PL.
8. The prosecution further examined Baldev Dutt, HC as PW-7, who was part of the investigation on 08.08.2002. The dead body was recovered in his presence vide the memo Ex.PM. Even certain other articles were also recovered in his presence.On 09.08.2002, the post mortem on the dead body was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Phagwara and the dead body was handed over to the family of the deceased. The prosecution further examined PW-8, Balbir Singh, HC and Gurbachan Singh, PW-9 and their testimonies were formal in nature. The prosecution further examined Darshan Singh, Halqa Patwari, who had prepared the scaled site map Ex. PQ. Further, Gopal Singh was examined as PW-11, who stated that he did not know all the three accused. He knew Dalbir Singh (since deceased) as he was from his village and 6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -7 he was murdered. However, he did not know as to whether Dalbir Singh was working at the lottery stall at Phagwara. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, at length. The prosecution further examined Harbhajan Singh as PW-12, who stated that he knew Dalbir Singh (since deceased) as well as the appellants. The appellants were running lotteries and were also working as agents for sending the people abroad. On 07.08.2002, he was coming from the house of his in-laws from Sarihn and was going to towards his Village Jagpalpur. At about 10:30 P.M, when he reached ¾ kilometre ahead of Palahi, Parmodh Kumar, Sansar Singh, both appellants and Rani were seen coming towards Palahi. He stopped Parmodh Kumar and asked him as to from where they were returning at that time. He was perturbed at that time. Parmodh Kumar accused told him that they had come after doing some work. Sansar Singh, appellant was carrying a dattar in his hand. Thereafter, all the accused went towards Village Palahi and he went towards his village. On the next day, he went to Village Lit near Halwara to meet his sister and returned after six days. The prosecution further examined Pardeep Kumar son of Gian Chand as PW-13, who stated that he had been running a shop of bangles at Palahi and he knew Dalbir Singh, since deceased, as his customer. He also knew all the appellants/accused present in the Court. On the night of 07.08.2002, he was going to close his shop in routine at 09:00 P.M and he was going to his village via Ramgarh. Dalbir Singh (since deceased) and Parmodh Kumar came to his shop and they told him that they could take him along. He told him that he was not to go via Ramgarh. Thereafter, Dalbir Singh (since deceased) and Parmodh Kumar left and he after closing his shop went to his 7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -8 village. In the morning, when he came to open his shop, he came to know that Dalbir Singh had been murdered. Only Parmodh Kumar and Dalbir Singh (since deceased) had come to his shop on that day. The prosecution further examined Surjit Singh, Inspector as PW-14, who proved on record the initial investigation and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused in this case. He made all recoveries and even arrested the appellants/accused in the present case.
9. After the prosecution had closed its evidence, the entire prosecution evidence was put to appellants in the shape of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants stated that they had been falsely involved in the present case. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances in the present case was incomplete, so as to infer the involvement of the appellants in the present case. Still further, even Gurmel Singh-PW-3 had not raised any suspicion against the present appellants and they had been falsely involved unnecessarily, just to victimize them. Apart from that, the trial Court had relied upon the statement of Harbhajan Singh, which was recorded by the police on 16.08.2002 i.e. after the several days of the murder. It is further submitted that the accused belonged to different villages and they had no reasons to commit the crime together. Still further, even the recovery of dattar from Sansar Singh, accused was doubtful and no person from the village was joined in the investigation of the present case.
8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -9
11. On the other hand learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that in the present case, the circumstantial evidence collected by the police was conclusive and clinching. In fact, there was enough evidence to show that both the appellants had committed the murder of Dalbir Singh by causing him injuries on his head as well as other parts of the body. Even, both the appellants were last seen in the company of the deceased, immediately after the occurrence and the dead body was recovered on the next day. Since, there are serious allegations against both the appellants and sufficient evidence has been collected against him, the appeal filed by them is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully; with their able assistance.
13. The present case is a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to conviction based on circumstantial evidence is very well crystalized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 by observing as follows:-
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -10 between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made:
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
14. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "G. Parshawanath Vs. State of Karnatka", 2010 (8), SCC 593 as follows:-
23.In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that 10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -11 evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred these inferences, common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further elaborated the law relating to the cases, which are based on circumstantial evidence and held in the matter of "Padala Vera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors." reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 as follows:-
(a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn. must be cogently and firmly established;
(b) those circumstances should of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(c) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
16. It is well established that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn has to be fully established by the 11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -12 prosecution. Even, the circumstances and the evidence so led before the Trial Court should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused is possible. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and the chain of evidence should be complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusions consistent with the innocent of the accused. Apart from that, it is well settled that a strong suspicion cannot take place of a proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the light of the above-stated legal propositions, we have to consider the evidence in the present case.
17. In the chain of circumstances, the first circumstance, which is sought to be proved by the prosecution is in the shape of testimony of PW-12, Harbhajan Singh, who categorically stated on 07.08.2002, he was coming from the house of his in-laws from Sarihn and was going to his Village Jagpalpur. At about 10:30 P.M, he saw that Parmodh Kumar, Sansar Singh and Rani, all the three accused were seen coming towards Palahi. He stopped Parmodh Kumar and asked him as to from which side they were coming at that time and he was perturbed at that time. Parmodh Kumar told him that they had come after doing some work. Sansar Singh, appellant was having a dattar in his hand and thereafter, all of them went towards Palahi and Harbhajan Singh went to his village. He went to meet his sister on the next day and after return to his village, he came to know about the murder of Dalbir Singh, deceased. His testimony has been corroborated by the statement of PW-13, Pardeep Kumar, who stated that at about 09:00 P.M on 07.08.2002, he saw Dalbir Singh (since deceased) in the company of Parmodh Kumar, appellant. They asked him that he should also 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -13 come along, however, he was not to go via Ramgarh. Thereafter, Dalbir Singh and Parmodh Kumar left for their houses and he went to his village. He further added that Sansar Singh-appellant was also with Dalbir Singh and Parmodh Kumar, but Sansar Singh was standing outside his shop. The accused sought to assail the testimony of both the witnesses on the ground that the occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 07-08.2002, whereas, the statement of Pardeep Kumar, PW-13 was recorded on 10.09.2002, whereas, the statement of Harbhajan Singh PW-12 was recorded on 16.08.2002. However, this Court does not agree with the submissions raised by defence in this regard. In fact, the investigation in the present case was still going on and even the accused had not yet been arrested, when the statement of Harbhajan Singh-PW-12 was recorded by the police. Still further, Surjit Singh Inspector-PW-14 admitted that on 08.08.2002, when he went to the place of recovery of dead body, neither Pardeep Kumar nor Harbhajan Singh were present there. Apart from that, even if there was lapse on the part of I.O, the prosecution can never be made to suffer for the same. Still further, the accused could not produce any evidence that both the witnesses had any relation with the deceased or they were inimical towards the accused. Thus, this Court agrees with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the testimonies of PW-12 Harbhajan Singh and PW-13 Pardeep Kumar could not be discredited in any manner and reliance has been correctly placed on both the statements.
18. Apart from that, another circumstance, which shows the involvement of the appellants in the crime is that on the night intervening 07- 08-2002, PW-12 Harbhajan Singh had seen that Sansar Singh, appellant was 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -14 carrying a dattar in his hand and Parmodh Kumar & Rani were also accompanying him. During the course of investigation, PW-14 Inspector Surjit Singh had arrested the appellants on 20.08.2002 and Sansar Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PG and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he led the police party to a place only known to him and got recovered a dattar. The dattar was taken into possession vide the memo Ex.PJ and sketch Ex.PH was prepared. Even though the dattar was not blood stained, however, it does not raise any suspicion as the occurrence had taken place on 08.08.2002 and the recovery had taken place after the arrest of Sansar Singh on 20.08.2002 and they had sufficient time to clean the weapon of offence.
19. Apart from that, from the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Satpal, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Dalbir Singh on 09.08.2002, the Board of doctors found the following injuries on the dead body of Dalbir Singh:-
1. Incised wound with multiple cut on the front of the neck 15 cm x 8 cm insize extending upto the vertibrea, 5th and 6th vertibrea was cut. Muscles, vesels, trachaea, oesophagus were cut.
2.Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm deep on the right side of the scalp. 6 cm above the right ear. On dissection: Fracture of skull was present underlying haemotoma was present, underlying dura was injured.
3. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm with deep bone on the left side of the scalp, 1.5 cm above the left ear.
4.Incised wound on the medial aspect of right elbow, 6 cm x 2 cm ir size, which was muscle deep.
5.Incised wound on medial aspect of left forearm which was 6cm x 1.5 cm ir size and was muscle deep above the elbow.
14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -15
6.Incised wound on right thigh 5 cm above the right patella, 2.5 cm x 1 muscle deер.
7. Incised wound on left knee on the lateral side 2.5 cm x 1 cm and was muscle deep.
Rest of organs were healthy and normal.
All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In fact, from the testimony of PW-6, it is apparent that all the injuries were incised wounds and were possible with the dattar, which had been recovered from the appellants. Still further, the accused did not even cross examine PW-6, Dr. Satpal and his testimony had gone unrebutted.
20. Apart from that, in the present case, there was motive also on the part of the appellants to commit the crime. In fact, from the testimony of PW-3 Gurmel Singh, it is apparent that the appellants had taken a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from his son Dalbir Singh (since deceased) for sending him to Canada and he was not sent to Canada by them. Even, the appellants had asked his son Dalbir Singh to join them in the lottery business. He then joined the said business and from the income of the lottery, his son used to contribute the amount towards Committee in the area of Phagwara. His son used to go Phagwara daily from the village and used to return in the morning. The appellants had killed Dalbir Singh, so that the money may not be returned to Dalbir Singh. To substantiate the statement of PW-3 Gurmel Simgh, the prosecution also examined PW-1 Malkiat Singh, who had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Gurmel Singh as loan vide pro-note executed by him in the presence of Harjinder Singh and Darshan Singh. Even, PW-2 Harsh Kumar, Commission Agent of Gurmel Singh and Dalbir Singh, since deceased also 15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -16 stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 58,639.68/ on 25.05.2002 to Dalbir Singh and he produced the original cash book in this regard. He exhibited the letter pad Ex.PC and the relevant entry of cash book Ex.PD. Thus, it is apparent that these witnesses had handed over huge sums to Gurmel Singh and Dalbir Singh, which was taken away by the appellants.
21. We completely agree with the Trial Court that the participation of both the appellants in the commission of crime was proved beyond doubt and they had committed murder of Dalbir Singh with a view to absolve themselves of the liability of making the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to him, which they owed to him.
22. Even otherwise, we have carefully perused the findings recording by the Trial Court and find that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence in the light of the settled cannons of law. Since, the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on sound reasons, we find no grounds to differ with the same.
23. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2004 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2004, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala are ordered to be upheld by this Court and the present appeals are ordered to be dismissed, being meritless.
24. Ordered accordingly.
25. The appellants may be taken in custody forthwith, if on bail, to serve the remaining sentence.
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of, accordingly.
27. Case property, if any, be dealt with, and destroyed after the expiry 16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 ::: CRA-D-440-DB-2004 (O&M) and connected matter -17 of period of limitation for filing the appeal, in accordance with law.
28. The Trial Court record be sent back.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 19.01.2026 hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 17 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2026 03:22:56 :::