Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Kuldip Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. A. No. 419-DB of 2002
DATE OF DECISION : 20.01.2014
Baldev Singh and another
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
1. Appellants Baldev Singh alias Dev and Balwinder Singh were tried by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34, and 404 IPC, for committing the murder of Joginder Singh, and for misappropriating a cash amount of ` 5,000/- belonging to the deceased. The trial court, vide its judgment dated 6.5.2002 convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and vide order of the even date, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Against the said judgment and order, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants.
Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -2-
2. The case of the prosecution is based upon the statement (Ex.PG) made by Harbans Singh (PW.6) son of deceased Joginder Singh, recorded by S.I Devinder Singh (PW.15), SHO, Police Station Sadar, Sangrur, on 2.3.1999 at 12.30 AM. In his aforesaid statement, the complainant stated that he was married and was residing separately from his parents. His father was employed as Road Roller Driver in PWD, Sangrur and used to go to Sangrur to attend his duty from village Kheri on bicycle. On 1.3.1999, his mother Chhoti and brother Sarabjit Singh told him that his father did not return home. Thereupon, at about 9.00 PM, he along with his brother Sarabjit Singh and uncle (elder brother of father) Teja Singh proceeded towards Sangrur on bicycles. When they reached near the brick kiln of one Tej Pal Singh resident of Kammo Majra Kalan, then in the lights of the moving vehicles on the road, they saw the bicycle of Joginder Singh and in the nearby ditches, they found the dead body of Joginder Singh with injuries on his face and abdomen. Complainant Harbans Singh further stated that his father Joginder Singh has been murdered by some unknown person or persons by causing injuries with sharp edged weapons.
3. After recording the said statement, SI Devinder Singh sent ruqa to the police station, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PG/1) was recorded by ASI Gurdeep Singh on 2.3.1999 at about 2.00 AM. Thereafter, SI Devinder Singh along with Harbans Singh and other police officials went to the place of occurrence. By that time, Faquir Singh (PW.10), who is brother-in-law Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -3- (sister's husband) of deceased Joginder Singh, had also arrived at the spot. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he stated that he was resident of Ajit Nagar Basti Sangrur, and was posted in the Food and Supplies Department at Sangrur. On 1.3.1999 at about 7.00 PM, he was going to his house from Ranbir College, Sangrur. In the way, near the liquor vend at the Truck Union, Sangrur, both the accused and Joginder Singh were present on a Rehri of fish snacks. Joginder Singh was advising the accused persons that their financial position was not so good to meet with two times meals and they should not waste money in liquor. The accused started quarreling with Joginder Singh. Thereupon, Faquir Singh stopped there and got the matter pacified between Joginder Singh and the accused persons. He asked Joginder Singh to go to his village and he himself went to his house. After reaching his house, Faquir Singh told his wife that her brother Joginder Singh was quarreling with two boys of village Kheri. Thereupon, she became anxious and on her asking, Faquir Singh started for village Kheri on his bicycle to inquire about Joginder Singh. In the way, complainant Sarabjit Singh and PW Teja Singh met him and told that Joginder Singh has been murdered. PW Faquir Singh expressed his doubt that Joginder Singh has been murdered by accused Balwinder Singh and Baldev Singh due to the aforesaid quarrel.
4. Thereafter, SI Devinder Singh lifted the blood stained dry straw and the blood stained earth from the spot and after putting the same in a Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -4- small tin box (Ex.P18), its parcel was prepared, which was duly sealed by SI Devinder Singh with his seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ. Thereafter, one black colour bicycle (Ex.P19) parked near the spot, as well as one red colour bag (Ex.P16) lying on the handle of the bicycle, containing ration card (Ex.P20) belonging to deceased Joginder Singh and one letter pad (Ex.P12), were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. One learning driving licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh which was valid upto 16.2.1999, one purse (Ex.P14) containing photograph of SPO Balwinder Singh (accused No.2) and one currency note (Ex.P15) of the denomination of ` 50/-, and one blood stained brick (Ex.P10), lying near the place of occurrence, were also taken into possession vide memos Ex.PL, Ex.PM and Ex.PS, respectively. All these recovery memos were attested by ASI Gurjant Singh and Faquir Singh (PW.10). After preparing the inquest report Ex.PC, SI Devinder Singh sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, under the supervision of HC Avtar Singh (PW.11).
5. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 2.3.1999, statement of one Sukhdev Singh (Ex.DA), who is nephew of deceased Joginder Singh and claimed himself to be the eye witness, was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he was working as a labourer in the sugarcane farm at village Kheri. On 1.3.1999, he had gone to Sangrur to purchase some household goods. At about 8.30 PM, on return to his village Kheri from Sangrur, when he reached near the bus stand of Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -5- village Kheri, ahead the bridge of drain, he saw in the lights of the trucks that both the accused persons were dragging Joginder Singh. Accused Baldev Singh had caught hold Joginder Singh from his arms and accused Balwinder Singh was causing injuries to Joginder Singh in his abdomen with a sharp edged weapon. Sukhdev Singh further stated that he after seeing the occurrence went to his village, and after going to the house of Joginder Singh, he enquired from his wife about Joginder Singh, who told that Joginder Singh had not returned home. He did not inform her regarding the occurrence witnessed by him. In the night, he heard about the murder of Joginder Singh.
6. On the same day, i.e. on 2.3.1999, Dr. Parbhat Kumar (PW.3) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Joginder Singh. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PB), injuries No.2 to 8 were having cuts in clothes on chest and abdomen. The doctor opined that the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of multiple injuries. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries No.2 to 8 were stated to be caused with sharp edged weapon whereas injuries No.1 and 9 were caused by blunt weapon. The probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. The wearings of the deceased along with the Post Mortem Report were handed over to SI Devinder Singh, which were taken into possession vide memo Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -6- Ex.PT.
7. On 12.3.1999, Gurmail Singh Panch produced both the accused before SI Devinder Singh. They were arrested and their personal search memo Ex.PV was prepared. Accused Baldev Singh also produced his scooter No. PB-13F-8941 along with its RC (Ex.P1), which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PX.
8. On 14.3.1999, accused Balwinder Singh, in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PY) got recovered one blood stained kirch (Ex.P2) which was kept concealed by him underneath the bricks near bridge of drain of Kammo Majra, in the presence of PW Sarabjit Singh and HC Bhim Sain. After preparing sketch (Ex.PY/1)of the kirch, it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PY/2. The rough site plan (Ex.PY/3) of the place of recovery of the said kirch was prepared.
9. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against both the accused and charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 404 were framed, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. PWs Gurmail Singh and Sarabjit Singh were given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. The reports of Forensic Science Laboratory were tendered into evidence as Ex.PQ and Ex.PR, according to which the kirch alleged to be recovered from accused Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -7- Balwinder Singh, the grass and soil, brick allegedly lifted from the spot, and the clothes, being worn by deceased Joginder Singh, were stained with human blood.
11. PW.1 Naresh Kumar, Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Sangrur, proved the Registration Certificate (Ex.P1) of scooter No. PB-13F-8941 in the name of accused Baldev Singh.
12. PW.2 Dharminder Singh, Draftsman is the formal witness, who proved the scaled site plan (Ex.PA) of the place of occurrence.
13. PW.3 Dr. Parbhat Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Joginder Singh, proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PB) and the pictorial diagram (Ex.PB/1) showing the seats of injuries. He stated that injuries No.2 to 8 could be possible from the kirch (Ex.P2) from its sharp side and injuries No.1 and 9 could be caused with the brick (Ex.P10).
14. PW.4 SI Rajwinder Randhawa, SHO, stated that on 1.3.1999, during the checking of guard duties of SPOs and police officials deputed on duty, accused Balwinder Singh SPO and some other police officials were found absent from duty, regarding which he proved the endorsement (Ex.PE) made in DDR Register as Rapat No. 28.
15. PW.6 Harbans Singh, who is son of the deceased and complainant in this case, has reiterated his initial version given to the police vide his statement Ex.PG.
Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -8-
16. PW.7 Rajinder Pal, Junior Assistant in the Office of Road and Building, Bridges, Dhuri, proved that deceased Joginder Singh was an employee of PWD and on 1.3.1999, he was paid salary for the month of February, 1999, to the tune of ` 5,601/-.
17. PW.9 Manjit Singh, Inspector (Assistant Grade I) in the Department of Food and Supplies, Punjab, Sangrur, proved ration card (Ex.P11) issued by their office in the name of Joginder Singh (deceased).
18. PW.10 Faquir Singh, brother-in-law (sister's husband) of deceased Joginder Singh, reiterated his version given to the police regarding the quarrel between both the accused and Joginder Singh (deceased) having taken place in his presence on the day of occurrence itself at about 6.30 PM. He further deposed regarding the police proceedings conducted at the spot in his presence.
19. PW.12 Sukhdev Singh, the alleged eye witness, reiterated the entire occurrence, alleged to be witnessed by him.
20. PW.13 Tarsem Chand, Steno in the office of DTO Fatehgarh Sahib, proved the learning driving licence (Ex.P13) in the name of accused Baldev Singh.
21. PW.14 HC Gurtej Singh, Office of SSP, Sangrur, brought the record pertaining to SPOs and stated that as per record, accused Balwinder Singh was posted as SPO in District Sangrur on 10.9.1993 and since 31.12.1996, he was working as SPO on guard in Zila Parishad, Sangrur. He Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -9- proved the posting order (Ex.P17) of accused Balwinder Singh.
22. PW.15 Inspector Devinder Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated regarding the entire investigation conducted by him and proved all the documents, prepared by him during investigation of the case.
23. PW.5 MHC Karamjit Singh, PW.8 Constable Ranjit Singh and PW.11 HC Avtar Singh are the formal witness, who proved their respective affidavits Ex.PF, Ex.PH and Ex.PO, to complete the chain of link evidence.
24. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded their innocence. They pleaded that they do not know each other. However, in defence, they did not lead any evidence.
25. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court relied upon the statement of eye witness Sukhdev Singh (PW.12), version of complainant Harbans Singh (PW.6), statement of Faquir Singh (PW.10) regarding last seen. Further, while relying upon the posting order (Ex.P17) of accused Balwinder Singh and the statement of SI Rajwinder Randhawa (PW.4) to the effect that during checking by him, accused Balwinder Singh along with three other SPOs was found absent from duty at the time of the occurrence, as well as the recovery of learning driving licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh from the place of occurrence, coupled with the recovery of kirch (Ex.P2) at the instance of accused Balwinder Singh, the trial court convicted and sentenced both the accused, as indicated in the first Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -10- para of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
26. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that accused Balwinder Singh has died on 12.7.2008, and the appeal qua him stands abated. Learned counsel for the respondent, while placing on record the death certificate of accused Balwinder Singh, does not dispute the said fact.
27. While assailing the conviction of accused Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the instant case, which is based upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has relied upon the following four types of incriminating evidence against the accused :
(i) The testimony of PW.10 Faquir Singh, real brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Joginder Singh (deceased), who has stated that on the day of occurrence, at about 6.30 PM, while going to his house, when he reached near country made liquor vend of Sunami Gate opposite Truck Union, Sangrur, he had seen that the accused were quarreling with Joginder Singh.
(ii) Statement of PW.12 Sukhdev Singh (nephew of the deceased) the alleged eye witness, who stated that on the day of occurrence, he saw the accused causing injuries to Joginder Singh.
(iii) Recovery of the learning driving licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh and one purse (Ex.P14) containing photograph of accused Balwinder Singh, lying at the Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -11- spot.
(iv) Recovery of kirch (Ex.P2) in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Balwinder Singh, after his arrest.
Learned counsel argued that statements of PW.10 Faquir Singh and PW.12 Sukhdev Singh are highly unbelievable and unreliable. He further argued that the Learning Driving Licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh, which is alleged to have been recovered from the spot, was neither sealed nor it was deposited in the Malkhana, therefore, the recovery of said articles from the spot is doubtful. Regarding the alleged recovery of purse (Ex.P14) containing photograph of accused Balwinder Singh, learned counsel argued that though the purse was deposited in the Malkhana, but it was without any photograph. Further, he submits that none of these articles find mention either in the inquest report (Ex.PC), which was prepared at the spot, or in the site plan annexed with the inquest report. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the alleged recoveries of the Learning Driving Licence of accused Baldev Singh and the purse containing photograph of accused Balwinder Singh are highly doubtful. Learned counsel further argued that in this case, the alleged witness of last seen and the eye witness have been planted later on. Therefore, all the aforesaid four types of circumstantial evidence are not reliable and the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
28. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -12- Punjab, argued that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants on the basis of the reliable and trust-worthy evidence led by the prosecution.
29. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-State, and carefully going through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
30. The case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence as well as the direct evidence of an alleged eye witness. It is fundamental principle of criminal law that every accused person must be presumed to be innocent unless and until he has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. His guilt must be established by relevant, cogent and reliable evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, such evidence should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. In light of these principles, first we will examine the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused.
Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -13-
31. First of all, we will examine the alleged recovery of the learning driving licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh from the spot. It has been admitted by Inspector Devinder Singh (PW.15), the Investigating Officer of the case, that recovery of this document does not find mention in the inquest report (Ex.PC). During the cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that column No. 22 and 23 of the inquest report under the heading "Description of each article found on or near the dead body", are blank. He did not explain as to why in these two columns, recovery of the aforesaid driving licence was not mentioned. It has also been admitted that although the learning driving licence of accused Baldev Singh was recovered from the spot, but it was neither sealed nor deposited in the Malkhana along with other articles recovered from the spot. This fact has been impliedly admitted by MHC Karamjit Singh (PW.5) in his affidavit Ex.PF, wherein it has not been stated that the driving licence was also deposited in the Malkhana along with the other articles. These facts create doubt in the mind of the court regarding the recovery of learning driving licence of accused Baldev Singh from the spot, which alleged to have connected accused Baldev Singh with the crime.
32. Similarly, the alleged recovery of purse (Ex.P14) containing photograph of accused Balwinder Singh from the spot, also does not find mention in the inquest report (Ex.PC). It has been stated by the Investigating Officer (PW.15) that though the said purse was also not sealed, Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -14- but it was deposited with the MHC in the Malkhana, without any photograph. When this purse was produced in the court during trial, at that time also, it was produced without any photograph. During the course of trial, an opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce the said photograph on 19.9.2001 and the case was adjourned, but in spite of that opportunity, the said photograph could not be produced. It leads to the conclusion that no photograph of accused Balwinder Singh was found in the purse (Ex.P14) recovered at the spot. This fact also creates doubt in the prosecution version regarding the identity of the accused.
33. In addition to the recovery of the aforesaid two articles, i.e. the driving licence (Ex.P13) of accused Baldev Singh and the purse (Ex.P14), alleged to be belonging to accused Balwinder Singh, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW.10 Faquir Singh, who alleged to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the day of occurrence at about 6.30 PM. This witness is the real brother-in-law (sister's husband) of deceased Joginder Singh. According to him, on the day of occurrence, i.e. on 1.3.1999, at about 6.30 PM, when he was coming from his place of working to his house, he had seen Joginder Singh standing on a Rehri, where fish was being sold. He stated that at that time, he saw that Joginder Singh was advising both the accused persons not to spend money on drinking liquor and eating fish. Thereupon, the accused started quarreling with Joginder Singh. It has been further stated by this witness that he Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -15- pacified Joginder Singh and asked him to go to his house and he went on his bicycle. He further stated that at about 9.00 PM, when he told this fact to his wife (sister of Joginder Singh), she asked him to inquire about the welfare of Joginder Singh as she was apprehending that those boys might have caused damage to him. Thereupon, this witness in search of Joginder Singh went towards his village, and in the way, on Kammo Majra Kheri road, he met his elder brother-in-law Teja Singh along with Sarabjit Singh (complainant) son of Joginder Singh, who were present near the dead body of Joginder Singh and they told that Joginder Singh has been murdered. This witness reached the spot before the arrival of the police and subsequently, he was associated in all the proceedings and he signed various documents/memos, which were prepared by the police at the spot. But the aforesaid facts with regard to "last seen" of the deceased in the company of the accused were not mentioned in the FIR or any of the documents. If this witness would have been the accused, he might have disclosed the facts to the police. Thus, in our view, the version given by this witness, who is close relative of the deceased, regarding the "last seen" is highly improbable and un-trustworthy. The conduct of this witness regarding not disclosing all the facts of "last seen" to the police creates doubt in his version.
34. Next, the prosecution is relying upon the direct evidence, i.e. testimony of PW.12 Sukhdev Singh, the alleged eye witness, who is real nephew of the deceased. This witness was working in the sugarcane farm in Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -16- village Kheri. He stated that on the day of occurrence, i.e. on 1.3.1999, from his place of working he had gone to Sangrur to purchase some household articles. When he was coming back from Sangrur on his bicylce, in the way, at about 8.30 PM, in the lights of the trucks, he saw that the accused were causing injuries to Joginder Singh by sharp edged weapon. He stated that though he slowed down his bicycle, but did not stop near the place of occurrence, and he went to his village, and told his aunt (wife of Joginder Singh) about the alleged occurrence witnessed by him. But he has admitted that he did not report the matter any where or to the police. He further stated that later on, when he heard about the death of his uncle Joginder Singh, he went on the spot and the police was there. The testimony of this witness, who is also a close relative of the deceased, is also unreliable and untrustworthy for the following reasons :-
(i) The conduct of this witness is abnormal. When he had witnessed the occurrence, where his real uncle was being caused injuries by two persons with sharp edged weapon, it does not stand to reason as to why he did not stop his bicycle to help his uncle. Though he slowed down his bicycle and witnessed the occurrence, but did not stop at the place of occurrence. This conduct of this witness is highly un-natural, and the explanation given by him that he got frightened and went to the village cannot be said to be natural.
(ii) The sugarcane farm, where he was working, and his village are on Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -17- one side, whereas the place of occurrence is on the other side. There was no occasion for him to go to Sangrur to purchase some household articles on bicycle from his sugarcane farm, after 6.00 PM, when there was dark. It appears that the story of going to Sangrur has been introduced by this witness just to show his presence at the place of occurrence. This fact also creates doubt in the version given by this witness.
(iii) The conduct of this witness that after witnessing the occurrence, he did not report the matter to the police or ay one further creates doubt regarding the version given by him. Though it has been admitted that after hearing about the death of Joginder Singh, he went at the spot and the police was there, but the eye witness account given by him does not find mention in any of the documents prepared by the police at the spot. If this witness had witnessed the occurrence and identified the accused, then name of both the accused should have been mentioned in the memos which were prepared by the police at the spot. Merely because Joginder Singh (deceased) had advised the accused not to spend money on taking liquor and eating fish, cannot be said to be the reason with the accused to commit such a serious crime. Therefore, even the motive for commission of the offence has not been established by the prosecution.
Now, except the recovery of kirch (Ex.P2) in pursuance of the disclosure Dass Narotam 2014.01.30 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. D-419-DB of 2002 -18- statement (Ex.PY) suffered by accused Balwinder Singh (who is now dead and the appeal qua whom has abated), there is no evidence against accused Baldev Singh, showing his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence of murder of Joginder Singh.
35. In the present case, neither there is any direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence against accused Baldev Singh, which establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and has come to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
36. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that from the aforesaid evidence, which has been relied upon by the prosecution, the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Baldev Singh has not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
37. Hence, the appeal qua accused Baldev Singh is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him, whereas the appeal qua accused Balwinder Singh stands abated.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 20, 2014 ( KULDIP SINGH )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2014.01.30 14:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document