Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2015
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Amol Rattan Singh
Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009
Date of Decision:23rd February, 2015
1. Lakhwinder Singh son of Faqir Singh
2. Simarjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh
3. Pargat Singh son of Swaran Singh
..Appellants
versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1172-DB of 2013
State of Punjab Appellant
versus
Bikramjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Kundan Lal Chaudhri, Advocate
for the appellants (Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009)
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General,Punjab
for Criminal Appeal No.1172-DB of 2013 and
for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB
of 2009).
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
By way of this order, we shall decide Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 "Lakhwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab" filed to challenge judgment dated 8.7.2009 and order dated 10.7.2009, KUMAR VIRENDER passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 2 convicting and sentencing the appellants in the following terms:
Name of convict Section Sentence
Simarjit Singh 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.2500/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for two months.
Lakhwinder Singh 302/34 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
and Pargat Singh of Rs.2500/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for two months each.
Lakhwinder Singh 307IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for one month.
Simarjit Singh and 307/34 IPC To undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine
Pargat Singh of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for one month each.
Pargat Singh 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months.
Simarjit Singh and 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months each.
Lakhwinder Singh
Pargat Singh 325 IPC To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for one month.
Simarjit Singh and 325/34 IPC To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to
Lakhwinder Singh
further undergo R.I for one month each.
Pargat Singh 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months only.
Simarjit Singh and 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months each.
Lakhwinder Singh
Lakhwinder Singh U/s 27 of Arms To undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine
Act of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo R.I for one month.
Criminal Appeal No.D-1172-DB of 2013 State of Punjab versus Bikramjit Singh filed by the State of Punjab to challenge acquittal of Bikramjit Singh, son of Lakhwinder Singh, shall also be decided with this appeal.
A wireless message was received, on 12.6.2006, at Police Station Lopoke, Tehsil and District Amritsar from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar regarding the death of one Satnam Singh and admission of Makhan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh, KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 3 residents of village Saidpur in an injured condition. Kuldeep Kumar SI/SHO, PS Lopoke accompanied by ASI Anoop Singh, ASI Lakhwinder Singh, HC Gurbax Singh, HC Satnam Singh, HC Surinder Singh, PHG Major Singh, SPO Talwinder Singh arrived at Karam Singh Ward of GNDU Hospital, Amritsar, and sought the opinion of the attending doctor whether the injured are fit to make statements. The attending doctor declared Daljit Singh fit to make a statement. Kuldeep Kumar, SI/SHO PS Lopoke recorded the signed statement of Daljit Singh, Ex.PA, which is to the following effect:-
Daljit Singh stated that at about 6.00 PM on 12.6.2006 he and his brothers Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and uncles Makhan Singh and Sulakhan Singh sons of Virsa Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Jaswant Singh were filling pits in a path. At some distance, Lakhwinder Singh son of Faqir Singh and his sons Bikramjit Singh, Simarjit Singh and their servant Pargat Singh son of Swaran Singh were working in their fields. Bikramjit Singh was ploughing the fields with a tractor when suddenly Lakhwinder Singh raised a lalkara that they should not be allowed to go to the market and should be taught a lesson for putting earth in the path. Simarjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh fired a gun shot from a .12 bore double barrel gun, that hit Satnam Singh in his stomach who fell down. Lakhwinder Singh fired a gun shot from a .315 swift rifle, which did not hit anyone. Lakhwinder Singh took the .12 bore gun from his son Simarjit Singh and fired a gun shot which hit Daljit Singh on his right leg, who fell down. Bikramjit Singh drove his tractor over Makhan Singh's body. The plough of the tractor hit Mukhtiar Singh on his KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 4 face. Pargat Singh inflicted `datar' blows, on the hand of Daljit Singh, on the head and lips of Balwinder Singh and two datar blows with its reverse side on the right shoulder. Pargat Singh also inflicted a `datar' blow on the right shoulder of Sulakhan Singh and a `datar' blow on the thumb of the right hand and right arm of Daljit Singh. As the neighbours raised an alarm, the assailants fled with their respective weapons. After making arrangement for conveyance, they reached Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where Satnam Singh was declared dead on arrival. Daljit Singh also stated that the cause of the attack was that the accused did not like the act of filling pits in the path. On the basis of the statement, an FIR was registered, investigation commenced, post mortem examination conducted and the site inspected. The appellants, including Bikramjit Singh were arrested, recoveries effected and upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 3.8.2006, but as the final report disclosed commission of offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Amritsar.
After a perusal of the final report, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, framed charges against the appellants but as they did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence.
The prosecution has produced both oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case.
PW1 Daljit Singh, is the injured-complainant, and an eye witness who has deposed in accordance with his statement made before the police, but during cross-examination, made certain KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 5 startling admissions. PW1 Daljit Singh admitted that when Pargat Singh was passing by, Satnam Singh (deceased) commented that Pargat Singh etc. are responsible for the pits and started quarrelling with Pargat Singh. Satnam Singh (deceased) gave 3-4 gandasi blows to Pargat Singh who fell down, but got up after some time. PW1 Daljit Singh has also admitted that they were carrying spades and caused injuries to Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh. PW1 Daljit Singh has also admitted that in an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, they were found to be the aggressors and as they were told that they would be challaned, they filed an application for anticipatory bail. PW1 Daljit Singh has also admitted that there was no prior dispute with respect to the passage.
PW2 Sulakhan Singh has corroborated the statement made by PW1 Daljit Singh, but has stated during cross-examination that all of them were empty handed and did not cause any injury to any of the accused. PW2, however, admitted that they came to know that they were going to be framed in a cross-case.
PW3 Balwinder Singh corroborated the statement made by PW1 Daljit Singh and also admitted during his cross-examination, that there was an altercation between Satnam Singh (deceased) and Pargat Singh and that Satnam Singh who was carrying a gandasi, gave 3-4 blows to Pargat Singh, who fell down. He has also admitted that he inflicted "kahi" blows upon Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh. Balwinder Singh also admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry and as he found that the complainant side were the aggressors, they applied for anticipatory bail. KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 6
PW4 HC Naresh Kumar, PW5 HC Surinder Singh, PW8 Constable Narinder Singh, PW9 HC Darshan Bir Singh and PW14 Constable Baljit Singh have tendered their respective affidavits Ex.PJ, Ex.PK, Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PBB into evidence.
PW15 is Kuldip Kumar, the Investigating Officer, who has deposed about the investigation and admitted during cross- examination, that injuries were found on the person of Bikramjit Singh (acquitted accused) and Pargat Singh, one of the appellants. He has also deposed with respect to the post mortem, receipt of a postmortem report, clothes taken into possession, various memos and documents prepared during investigation, a rough sketch of the place of recovery etc. the disclosure statements and recoveries etc. PW7 Sanjeev Kumar, Clerk, D.C.Office, Amritsar, has proved a photo copy of the license Ex.PR. PW10 Gulzar Singh has deposed that on 12.6.2006 after receipt of information regarding the death of his brother-in-law Satnam Singh, he went to the hospital and identified the dead body of Satnam Singh, vide memo Ex.PU.
PW12 is Dr. Deepak Walia, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Christian Medical,Ludhiana, who, while posted as Government Medical College, Amritsar, conducted the post mortem examination of Satnam Singh.
PW18 is Dr. Gurbinderbir Singh, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, proved X-ray reports with respect to injuries on Daljit Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Balwinder Singh.
PW17 is Gurjaspal Singh, Patwari, Revenue Circle, Lodhi Gujjar, Tehsil Ajnala, Amritsar, who proved site plan Ex.PNNN and KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 7 during cross-examination deposed from the relevant jamabandi that killa no.7/23 is in possession of Bikramjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh by way of a mortgage. Killa nos. 24, 25,21,22, and 25/1 are also in possession of Bikramjit Singh etc. PW5 HC Surinder Singh tendered affidavit Ex.PK. PW6 is SI Anoop Singh, who accompanied the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence and arrested Lakhwinder Singh, Simarjit Singh and Pargat Singh. SI Anoop Singh has deposed that, a 315 bore rifle was recovered from the possession of Lakhwinder Singh along with a magazine but without cartridges. A parcel was prepared and sealed with impression"KK" and taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PL, attested by Anoop Singh and SI Lakhwinder Singh. A double barrel 12 bore gun was recovered from Simarjit Singh without cartridges.
The gun was converted into a sealed parcel and sealed with seal bearing impression "KK" and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM. A `datar' carried by Pargat Sigh was also recovered. A sketch of the `datar' is Ex.PN. The datar was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PO. The sketch as well as recovery memo were attested by SI Anoop Singh and ASI Lakhwinder Singh.
PW7 is Sanjeev Kumar, Clerk, D.C. Office, Amritsar, who proved the license regarding, a 12 bore double barrel gun and a 315 bore rifle standing in the name of Lakhwinder Singh. PW8 is Constable Narinder Singh who tendered affidavit Ex.PS into evidence.PW9 is HC Darshan Bir Singh who tendered affidavit Ex.PT. PW10 is Gulzar Singh son of Swaran Singh, who identified the dead body of Satnam Singh and admitted his signatures on KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 8 Ex.PU. PW13 is HC Sawinder Singh, who delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. PW14 is Constable Baljit Singh who tendered affidavit Ex.PBB.
The Public Prosecutor tendered FSL report Ex.AAAA and closed prosecution evidence. The trial court, thereafter, put the incriminating circumstances to each accused separately, who denied their involvement and pleaded innocence.
Pargat Singh appellant made a statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:-
" That the allegations against us are totally false. Actually on the day of occurrence, I was passing from the pathway to go to our fields. I was working with Bikramjit Singh accused. Satnam Singh exhorted me saying that I am responsible for creating deep pits in pathway for which they (Satnam Singh)etc., have to put earth. Altercation ensued. Satnam Singh was very hot headed and was having gandasi. He assaulted me saying that he will not let me go alive, I fell down and my kassi also fell. Bikramjit Singh fired shot from gun while rushing near me. Shot hit Satnam Singh. Others to assault. I got up and Bikramjit Singh wielded Kassies in right of private defence. We fell down. Police came and lifted us. Gun too was taken by the police. The other party being politically powerful involved us in a false case. Later, in investigation, directions were made to challan other party KUMAR VIRENDER in a cross-case. The police hurriedly put challan in the 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 9 court without waiting for the outcome of ordered enquiry. I am innocent."
Simarjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh made a separate statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:
" I am innocent. I was not present at the place of occurrence. I was found innocent by the police. Bikramjit Singh appellant, who has been acquitted, made a separate statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:-
" I was working in my fields. I keep receiving threats because of political enmity and so I keep gun. On the day of occurrence while I was in my fields. I heard altercations between Satnam Singh and Pargat Singh. Pargat Singh was coming from the village and was to join me. Satnam Singh assaulted Pargat Singh and Pargat Singh fell on the ground. I fired in right of private defence of Pargat Singh, otherwise Satnam Singh would have caused him more injuries or his death. Satnam Singh was behaving very aggressively. Pargat Singh then got up; I and Pargat Singh were again attempted to assault by other side. I too was caused injuries. I and Pargat Singh wielded Kassies in our defence we fell and later only lifted by the police, which kept us in illegal custody. I am too was lifted by the police. Police suppressed the circumstances favouring us KUMAR VIRENDER and created false evidence against us. I am innocent." 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 10
Lakhwinder Singh did not make a detailed statement. The appellants/accused also led evidence in defence. DW1 Dr. Lakshman Dass, Senior Medical Officer, Rajoke, Taran Taran, examined Bikramjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh (acquitted), on 15.6.2006 and found the following injuries:-
"1. An reddish contusion 10 x 6 cms present on the back of right elbow, tender to touch. X-ray was advised.
2. An diffused swelling 15 x 9 cms present on the back of right forearm, tender to touch. X-ray was advised.
3. An reddish contusion 10 x 6 ms present on the dorsum of right hand, tender to touch. X ray was advised.
4. An reddish bluish contusion 15 x 8 cms present on the ventaral part i.e., palm of left hand, tender to touch.
5. An reddish bluish contusion 6 x 4 cms present over the back of left thumb, mobility of thumb was restricted, tender to touch. Bony creptus was present in underlying bone and underlying bone was fractured."
Dr. Lakshman Dass opined that injuries no.1 to 5 were caused by a blunt edged weapon and after receipt of X-ray opined that injury nos. 1 and 5 were grievous, whereas the other injuries were simple. During cross-examination, the doctor opined that injuries on the person of Bikramjit Singh being the result of a fall, cannot be ruled out.
DW2 Didar Singh, retired DSP, deposed that Daljit Kaur wife of Lakhwinder Singh, filed an application for an inquiry into the entire incident and after inquiry, he found Simarjit Singh son of KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 11 Lakhwinder Singh innocent and that Bikramjit Singh and Pargat Singh had sustained injuries at the spot. Didar Singh also deposed that he ordered that a cross-case be registered against the complainant party and thereafter proved his report mark DW4/A. DW3 is Dr. K.D.S.Aulakh, Senior Resident, Department of Surgery, Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, who examined Pargat Singh on 14.6.2006 and found the following injuries:-
" 1. Diffuse swelling 13 x 9 cms on the middle top of skull. Pain was present. X ray was advised.
2 Diffuse swelling 7 x 5 cms present on the dorsum of right hand. It was tendered to touch. X- ray was advised.
3. Penetrating wound about 1 cm on the back of left forearm. 7 cm below the elbow. Swelling was present all around. Collected blood was oozing out from the wound. X-ray was advised.
4. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 cm on the back of left little finger at the level of distal inter phalangeal joint. Clotted blood was present. X ray was advised.
5. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cms on the back of left ring finger at the level second phalanx. Clotted blood was present. X-ray was advised.
Injuries no.1 to 5 were kept under observation and probable duration of injuries was within 48 hours.
Dr. K.D.S.Aulakh, opined that a blunt weapon was used to inflict injuries no.1 and 2, whereas a sharp edged weapon was used to inflict injuries no.4 and 5 but he could not record an KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 12 opinion as to the nature of weapon with respect to injury no.3. Injuries no.4 and 5 were declared grievous. The doctor proved medico-legal report Ex.DB and his opinion is Ex.DB/1. During cross- examination, the doctor opined that injuries no.1 and 2 are possible by a fall, whereas injuries no.3 and 4 are on non-vital parts of the body.
DW4 is Dr. Poonam Ohri, Radiologist, Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, who proved X-ray reports relating to Bikram Singh DW5 is DSP Jatinder Singh, Goindwal Sahib, who also conducted an inquiry into the incident and placed on record a photostat copy of his inquiry report, Ex.DW5/A. Jatinder Singh, DSP, opined that he found Simarjit Singh innocent and that Bikramjit Singh and Pargat Singh received injuries at the spot. The DSP also deposed that he recommended registration of a cross-case.
After considering the evidence on record as well as arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, the trial court acquitted Bikramjit Singh, but convicted and sentenced Lakhwinder Singh, Simarjit Singh and Pargat Singh in terms referred to the opening paragraph of this judgment by holding that as the appellants were the aggressors, their plea of a right to private defence cannot be accepted.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive as prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was no prior enmity between the parties. PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh have during their cross- examination admitted that before being hit by a gun shot, Satnam KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 13 Singh deceased had an argument with Pargat Singh and inflicted 3- 4 gandasi blows upon Pargat Singh, thereby proving that the complainant party was the aggressor and the appellants, if at all, inflicted injuries, they did so in self defence. It is further submitted that PW1 Daljit Singh, the complainant, and PW3 Balwinder Singh, injured eye-witnesses, have also admitted that they were carrying spades and inflicted injuries on Pargat Singh and Balwinder Singh, thereby adding weight to the appellants' arguments, that the complainant party was the aggressor and the appellants, if at all, inflicted injuries in self defence. It is further submitted that depositions by DW2, DSP Didar Singh and DW5 Jatinder Singh, police officers, who conducted inquiries, reveal that the complainant party was found to be the aggressor and a cross case was recommended but on account of political interference, the Investigating Officer filed a challan against the appellants and did not pursue the cross-case. The injuries on the person of Pargat Singh and Balwinder Singh have been proved by the depositions of DW1 Dr. Lakshman Dass, DW3 Dr. K.D.S.Aulakh and DW4 Dr. Poonam Ohri but have not been explained by the prosecution, thereby falsifying the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the appellants have been held to be aggressors merely because Satnam Singh passed away. The admissions by PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh that Satnam Singh inflicted 3-4 gandasi blows before the gun shots were fired, proves that the complainants were the aggressors and the appellants acted in self defence. This apart, Simarjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh was in Jalandhar for KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 14 recruitment to the Punjab Armed Police and on 11.6.2006, went to his sister's house at village Johal Raju Singh and returned on 12.6.2006 at about 8.00/9.00 PM. It is further submitted that the FSL report should be rejected as it has not been proved in accordance law.
Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that the prosecution has proved its case in its entirety by the clear, cogent and convincing depositions of three eye witnesses duly corroborated by medical evidence. The mere fact that the appellants may have suffered injuries, is not sufficient to clothe them with a plea of self defence as there was no reason for them to have fired gun shots, that led to fatal and other injuries. The presence of three eye witnesses renders proof of motive irrelevant and as the deposition by eye witnesses, is duly corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of weapon of offence, the FSL report etc., the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced. As regards the acquittal of Bikramjit Singh, it is argued that Bikramjit Singh's acquittal was not warranted particularly as the trial court has held that the appellant side was the aggressor.
We have heard counsel for the parties, considered arguments advanced and appraised the evidence on record.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the appellants were filling pits, they were attacked by the complainant side leading to the death of Satnam Singh and injuries to PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh. The prosecution evidence consists of depositions by three eye witnesses, medical evidence, disclosure KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 15 statements, recoveries of weapons and Forensic Science Laboratory reports etc. PW1 Daljit Singh, complainant, recorded a statement, Ex.PA, before the police, that they were filling pits in a path. Lakhwinder Singh appellant and his sons Bikramjit Singh and Simarjit Singh and their servant Pargat Singh were working in their fields. Bikramjit Singh was ploughing the fields with a tractor. Lakhwinder Singh suddenly raised a lalkara that the complainant party should be taught a lesson for filling pits. Simarjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh fired a shot from a .12 bore double barrel gun which hit Satnam Singh deceased in his stomach. Satnam Singh fell down. Lakhwinder Singh fired from his 315 bore rifle, which did not hit anyone. Lakhwinder Singh snatched the .12 bore double barrel gun from his son Simarjit Singh and fired a shot which hit Daljit Singh complainant on his right leg. Bikramjit Singh drove his tractor over Makhan Singh and the plough of the tractor hit the mouth of Makhan Singh. Pargat Singh inflicted datar blows on Balwinder Singh, Sulakhan Singh and the complainant.
PW2 Sulakhan Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh who have also deposed as eye witnesses, have in their depositions in the affirmative, deposed in consonance with the statement made by PW1 Daljit Singh, before the police. However, PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh during cross-examination, made certain startling admissions that would have a significant bearing on the outcome of case but shall be dealt with later. The depositions by PW1 Daljit Singh, PW2 Sulakhan Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 16 are sought to be corroborated by medical evidence.
PW16 Dr. Kirpal Singh, Lecturer Government Medical College, Amritsar, medico-legally examined PW1 Daljit Singh son of Swaran Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
" 1 Multiple lacerated wounds (18) on anterior aspect of right leg, extending from medial end of knee to middle of foot, thereby covering area of 47.2 cms size varying from 0.2 x 0.2 cms to 0.5 x 0.2 cms. Three wounds were at medial end of knee, lower middle end of knee, at tibial tuberosity, 13 were on anterior part of leg and medial aspect of leg, I on medial malleolous area, one on foot in its dorsal part, 7.2 cms distal and medial to later malleolous, wounds were painful, clotted blood was present margins were inverted, depth was not probed.
2. Incised wound on right forearm in its medial and distal part, extending to the posterior part, 4 cms proximal to wrist joint, size was 4.2 x 1.1 cms and 2.8 x 1.4 cms, was muscle deep. Fresh clotted blood was present.
3. Reddish abrasion 4.2 x 1.2 cms on left thumb in its proximal phalanx and back area.
4. Reddish abrasion 1.1 x 1 cms on left index finger in its middle phalanx area."
The doctor proved MLR Ex.PJJJ, pictorial diagram Ex.PKKK and opined that injury no.1 was caused by a fire arm and proved his report Ex.PMMM. During cross-examination, the doctor KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 17 opined that injury no.1, is not from a close range and injuries no.3 and 4 are possible as a result of fall. Injuries nos. 3 and 4 were declared simple and after receipt of X-ray report, injury nos.1 and 2 were also declared simple.
PW2 Sulakhan Singh son of Virsa Singh was also examined by PW16 Dr. Kirpal Singh, Lecturer Government College, Amritsar who found the following injuries:-
"1 Reddish contusion 6.4 x 4.3 cms on right scapular area in its upper middle part, complaint of pain, contusion was irregularly present.
2. reddish abrasion 2.6 x 1.1. cms on right supra scapular area. It was irregularly present.
Dr.Kirpal Singh proved medico-legal report Ex.PEEE and pictorial diagram Ex.PFFF and declared injury no.1 grievous.
PW11 Dr. Navpreet Kaur, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, medico-legally examined PW3 Balwinder Singh son of Swaran Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. A lacerated wound 3.4 x 0.6 cms was present on right parietal region, 6 cms above of ear pinna. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. A lacerated wound 3.5 x 1 cm was present on right side of chin. 1 cm below angle of mouth. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. A reddish bruise 8 x 2.4 cms was present on right KUMAR VIRENDER arm, 6 cms below and lateral tip of right shoulder. 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 18
4. A reddish abrasion 1 x 0.7 cms was present on right shoulder, 3 cms lateral to tip of shoulder.
5. A reddish abrasion 1 x 06 cms was present 1.5 cms behind injury no.4.
6. A reddish abrasion 1 x 1 cms was present on inter scapular region, 11.8 cms below posterior hair life.
Dr. Navpreet Kaur opined that the weapon used was blunt, proved MLR Ex.PX, pictorial diagram Ex.PY and opined after receipt of the X-ray report and surgeon's opinion that injuries no. 1 to 6 were simple. She opined that injuries no.1 and 2 could be a result of a fall on a hard surface and injuries no. 3 to 6 could be a result of multiple falls.
PW11 Dr. Navpreet Kaur, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, also examined Makhan Singh son of Virsa Singh, aged 60 years and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1 An incised wound 4 X 1.5 cms was present on left side of face and left ala of nose, 2.5 cms above upper lip. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. A reddish bruise 9. 9 x 2 cms was present on right scapular region. Patient complained of pain.
3. Patient complained of pain in right thigh, leg. There was no external mark of injury."
Dr. Navpreet Kaur has deposed that the opinion with respect to injuries, was kept pending subject to the surgeon's opinion and receipt of the X-ray report. The weapon used to inflict injury no.1 KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 19 was a sharp edged weapon and injuries nos.2 and 3 were with a blunt weapon. Dr. Navpreet Kaur proved Ex.PV, the MLR and Ex.PW, pictorial diagram. Dr. Navpreet Kaur denied a suggestion during cross-examination that injury no.1 could be suffered as a result of a fall on a hard edged article but stated that possibility of injury no.2, being suffered as a result of fall, cannot be ruled out.
Satnam Singh deceased, as per the post mortem report and the opinion of the doctor, who conducted post mortem, died as the result of a single gun shot fired from a .12 bore gun, from a distance of about 10 feet. PW12 Dr. Deepak Walia, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, conducted post mortem and made the following observations:-
" 1.34 circular lacerated wounds measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in diameter with inverted margins present on front of chest and upper part of abdomen in an area of 10" x 10".
Clotted blood was present at site.
On dissection all injuries traversed chest and abdominal parity. 17 pellets were recovered from abdomen as well as chest cavity, Pellets have injured pericardium right ventricle of heart, about 350 cc of blood was present in pericardium cavity. Transverse mesocolan, omentum, liver, small intestine were injured. Right lung showed perforations. About 500 ML of blood was present right plural cavity and 2.5 litre of blood in peritonum cavity KUMAR VIRENDER along with clotted blood. Stomach contained about 20 cc 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 20 of fluid. All other organs were healthy. The cause of death in this case in my opinion was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of fire arms injuries describe as injury no.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury was anti mortem in nature. I handed over to police stitched dead body along with its belongings after post mortem, carbon copy of MLR police paper no.1 to 26, a sealed jar duly labelled containing pellets removed from the dead body. The time between injury and death was few minutes to an hour. Time between death and post mortem was 12 to 24 hours."
Dr. Deepak Walia proved the original post mortem report Ex.PZ and pictorial diagram Ex.PAA. During cross- examination, the doctor opined that the gun shot may have been fired from a distance of about 10 yards.
The medical evidence corroborates the depositions by PW1 Daljit Singh, PW2 Sulakhan Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh about injuries inflicted upon them and the fatal gun shot.
The ocular and medical evidence is sought to be corroborated by recovery of weapons, i.e., a.12 bore double barrel gun, .315 bore rifle, and datar etc. The .12 bore double barrel gun and a .315 bore rifle, as per the FSL report, were used to fire gun shots and, therefore, corroborate depositions by PW1 Daljit Singh, PW2 Sulakhan Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh and the medical evidence. The prosecution has also proved that Satnam Singh deceased died from a gun shot fired from a .12 bore gun and Daljit KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 21 Singh received an injury on his leg, though simple, as a result of a gun shot and injuries by use of a gandasi, whereas injuries on the other witnesses were inflicted by a datar. The fatal gun shot was fired by Simarjit Singh. A shot fired by Lakhwinder Singh, from a .315 bore rifle did not hit anyone but the shot fired from the .12 bore gun hit the leg of Daljit Singh, whereas datar blows were inflicted by Pargat Singh. The prosecution also alleges that Bikramjit Singh drove his tractor over Makhan Singh, but Balwinder Singh has been acquitted by the trial court.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution if it were true, would require nothing more for it to be accepted but a perusal of the cross-examination of PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh and the medical evidence adduced in defence, namely, depositions by DW1 Dr. Lakshman Dass, who examined Bikramjit Singh and found five injuries; DW3 Dr. K.D.S.Aulakh, who examined Pargat Singh and found five injuries, two of which, were grievous and DW4 Dr. Poonam Ohri, Radiologist, who found a fracture on Bikram Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh, proves that the truth has, to an extent, been withheld and or twisted by both sides.
Before we proceed to amplify our conclusion, it would be appropriate to record that where multiple injuries, detected on the person of an accused are not self suffered and are not explained by the prosecution, the injuries so suffered, are entitled to receive as much consideration as injuries on the complainant side. A court shall, in such a situation, appraise prosecution and defence evidence, and proceed to determine which of the sides was the aggressor and KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 22 thereafter proceed to determine whether injuries on the accused were suffered as aggressors or in self defence. Even if a specific plea of self defence is not raised, but is discernible from the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses or statements made under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court may, while considering the nature of injuries upon both parties, consider and opine whether the injuries were inflicted in self defence or as the aggressor and by which party.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the cross-examination of PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh, eye-witnesses and statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do raise a credible plea of self defence by and on behalf of the appellants, but before recording any conclusion of this plea, it shall be necessary to determine which of the parties was the aggressor.
A perusal of the evidence on record, namely, oral depositions and medical evidence, reveals that both parties have suffered injuries. The prosecution, however, chose not to bring forth injuries suffered by the appellants on record and in fact, presented a simple case alleging that the appellants were the aggressors and inflicted injuries, including the fatal injury. The prosecution story that the appellants were the aggressors, however, begins to unravel in the cross-examination of PW1 Daljit Singh, who, during his cross- examination, made the following admissions:-
" We had been putting earth on the path way for about 2 KUMAR VIRENDER and half hours before this occurrence. Accused were 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 23 working when we started putting earth on the path way. We both were visible to each other. Since there were pits in the path way as such we were levelling the path way. Both we and accused were using the path way. Actually levelled path would have benefited the accused equally. Satnam Singh deceased and Pargat Singh started quarreling with each other as when Pargat Singh passed by us Satnam Singh told him that he is responsible for the pits in the path way and they started altercating with each other. From our side the first injury was sustained by Satnam Singh with fire arm. After receipt of that injury Satnam Singh fell down on the ground and he never got up. Before being hit Satnam Singh deceased had given 3-4 gandasi blows to Pargat Singh. Pargat Singh fell down on the ground but after some time he again got up. Apart from Satnam Singh we were having spades with us and we also caused injuries to both Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh, accused. Thereafter both Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh fell down on the ground....."
PW1 Daljit Singh has, during his cross-examination, made significant admissions that paint an entirely different picture, not only as to the genesis of the dispute but also as to relevant facts. PW1 Daljit Singh admits that as Pargat Singh passed by, Satnam Singh (deceased) accused Pargat Singh of creating pits in the path and then began quarrelling. Daljit Singh has also admitted that before being hit by a gun shot, Satnam Singh, deceased, inflicted 3- KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 24 4 gandasi blows on Pargat Singh. Daljit Singh has also admitted that the complainant side were carrying spades with which they caused injuries to Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh. The prosecution chose not to explain these significant admissions which prove that genesis of this unfortunate incident that, led to death of Satnam Singh and injuries to others, was a verbal altercation between Satnam Singh and Pargat Singh, followed by Satnam Singh inflicting 3-4 gandasi blows on Pargat Singh and then the others joining in.
PW2 Sulakhan Singh is also an eye witness, but during his cross-examination, did not admit that the complainant side inflicted any injury to Pargat Singh etc. PW3 Balwinder Singh, another eye witness, has during his cross-examination, made admissions similar to admissions made by PW1 Daljit Singh. A relevant extract from his cross- examination reads as follows:-
" We had no dispute with the accused on any earlier occasion. As tractor of the accused was also to pass from that path way and our putting earth on the path way was to benefit accused also. The first person who sustained injuries was Satnam Singh deceased. Satnam Singh fell down on the receipt of injuries and he never got up and remained lying on the ground. Satnam Singh had asked Pargat Singh to start with that actually he is responsible for the pits in the pathway. Satnam Singh told Pargat Singh that he drove tractor through this way rashly which KUMAR VIRENDER resulted the pits. Thereafter Satnam Singh and Pargat 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 25 Singh altercated. Satnam Singh deceased was having gandasi with him and he gave 3-4 blows to Pargat Singh. Pargat Singh fell down on the ground but thereafter he again got up. We other injured were having kahis with us and we also gave injuries to Pargat Singh and Bikram Singh. Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh fell down on the ground..."
A perusal of the aforesaid extract reveals that though PW3 Balwinder Singh has deposed that the first person who sustained injuries, was Satnam Singh, but in the latter part of his cross-examination, admitted that genesis of the occurrence was verbal altercation between Satnam Singh and Pargat Singh with Satnam Singh accusing Pargat Singh of creating pits by driving his tractor rashly. PW3 Balwinder Singh has also admitted that after this altercation, Satnam Singh gave 3-4 gandasi blows on Pargat Singh and they (complainant side) inflicted injuries on Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh, with `kahis'.
A perusal of the cross examination of PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh, reveal that they contain significant admissions that prove that genesis of the dispute, was other than the one projected by the prosecution. The admissions prove that the complainant side was filling pits in the path and as Pargat Singh passed by, Satnam Singh (deceased) accused Pargat Singh of creating pits in the path by driving his tractor rashly. A verbal altercation ensued whereafter Satnam Singh inflicted 3-4 gandasi blows on Pargat Singh and they also inflicted injuries on Pargat KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 26 Singh and Bikramjit Singh. The injuries on Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh are corroborated by the depositions of DW3 Dr K.D.S.Aulakh and DW1 Dr. Lakshman Dass, who found five injuries on the person of Pargat Singh and after receipt of X-ray report dated 14.6.2006, declared injuries No's. 1 to 3 simple and injuries No's.4 and 5 grievous. DW1 Dr. Lakshman Dass found five injuries on the person of Bikramjit Singh, an accused, who has been acquitted and after receipt of the X-ray report dated 19.6.2006, declared injuries No's. 1 and 5 grievous and the other injuries simple. The injuries, inflicted on Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh are admitted by PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh, eye-witnesses, during their cross-examination and corroborated by medical evidence. This apart, PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh admit that they inflicted injury with their respective spades on Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh and it was thereafter that the fatal gun shot was fired.
The injuries inflicted by Satnam Singh (deceased) upon Pargat Singh read along with the medical evidence adduced in defence and admissions, made by eye witnesses PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh, in their cross-examination, prove that this unfortunate incident was initiated by Satnam Singh, deceased, by entering into a verbal altercation with Pargat Singh, followed by his inflicting injuries with a gandasi, upon Pargat Singh and injuries upon Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh with spades by Daljit Singh etc. culminating into Lakhwinder Singh raising a lalkara, Simarjit Singh firing the fatal gun shot that hit Satnam Singh and led to the latter's ultimate demise, Lakhwinder Singh firing a gun shot that missed and KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 27 then a gun shot that hit Daljit Singh on his leg, thereby, in our considered opinion, proving that the complainants were the aggressors and the unfortunate incident that led to demise of Satnam Singh, was initiated by Satnam Singh (deceased).
As we have held that the complainant side was the aggressor and the appellants invoke, as discernible from the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a plea that they inflicted injuries in self defence, proceed to determine whether the plea of self defence can be accepted and if so, with respect to which of the appellants and to what extent?
A plea of self defence inhers a present and imminent danger to life and limb but may only be accepted if it is followed by a response commensurate to the perceived danger. Sections 96 and 100 of the Indian Penal Code confer a right upon every person, subject, however, to restrictions contained in Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, when faced with an attack to use commensurate force to ward off such an attack and to inflict injuries commensurate to the perceived danger. The right to private defence, does not merely extend to defence of the person of an individual, but may, depending upon the circumstances, extend to defending the person of another.
A perusal of the evidence on record, reveals that the initial verbal altercation took place between Pargat Singh and Satnam Singh, deceased. Satnam Singh, thereafter, inflicted `gandasi' blows on Pargat Singh followed by PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh inflicting blows with spades upon Pargat Singh KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 28 and Bikramjit Singh. The appellants Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were, at a distance from Pargat Singh and was no imminent, much less a perceived, danger to their person. The lalkara attributed to Lakhwinder Singh and the gun shots fired by Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, cannot be said to have been fired in their self defence, much less in response to any perceived danger to their person sufficient to clothe them with a right to use commensurate force, to protect their person.
Simarjit Singh, as is apparent from the evidence on record, fired the fatal gun shot, hitting Satnam Singh, after Lakhwinder Singh exhorted his sons, to take immediate action. Lakhwinder Singh fired a gun shot which did not hit anyone and thereafter, fired a shot from the .12 bore double barrel gun, used by Simarjit Singh and inflicted an injury on the right leg of PW1 Daljit Singh, which has been proved by medical evidence and deposition by two other eye witnesses. The role played by Lakhwinder Singh in the death of Satnam Singh i.e an exhortation and firing a gun shot and then a gun shot that hit the leg of Daljit Singh, cannot be said to be an act committed in self defence of his person as he was not in any imminent danger. Thus, while holding that the complainant side was the aggressor, it is held that as Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were, in no imminent danger of receiving any injury, whether fatal or otherwise are not entitled to invoke the right of private defence of their person but whether they are entitled to invoke the right to defend the person of their servant Pargat Singh, is a matter which we shall KUMAR VIRENDER discuss after we discuss the case again Pargat 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 29 Singh.
A perusal of the evidence on record, particularly admissions made by PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh, in their cross-examination, reveal that as Pargat Singh was passing by, Satnam Singh, deceased, accused him of creating pits in the path by driving his tractor rashly. Satnam Singh, thereafter, inflicted 3-4 datar blows on the person of Pargat Singh. PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh have admitted that they were carrying spades and inflicted injuries. The injuries on the person of Pargat Singh have been proved by the deposition of Dr. DW3 K.D.S.Aulakh, as five, in number. Injuries no. 1 and 2 were diffused swellings, injury no.3 was a penetrating wound, whereas injuries no.4 and 5 were incised wounds. Injuries no.1 and 2 were inflicted with a blunt edged weapon and injuries no.4 and 5 with a sharp edged weapon. With respect to injury no.3, the doctor could not opine as to the nature of the weapon. Injuries no.4 and 5, inflicted with a sharp edged weapon were declared grievous. Pargat Singh was the first person to be attacked by the complainant party and if he inflicted injuries to any one on the complainant side, inflicted these injuries in self defence as his life and limb were in imminent danger. Pargat Singh when attacked with sharp edged weapons can be reasonably presumed to have apprehended death or grievous hurt to his person and, therefore, inflicted injuries on the complainant side in the exercise of his right of private defence. Pargat Singh had nothing to do with the firing of the gun shots and as he is said to have inflicted injuries upon Daljit Singh and Balwinder Singh. The injuries inflicted by Pargat KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 30 Singh would, thus, fall within his right to defend his person, as postulated by Sections 96 to 100 of the Indian Penal Code.
An argument that right to private defence is also available to Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh as Pargat Singh, their servant, was in imminent danger, does not pass muster. Lakhwinder Singh and Simarjit Singh were standing at a distance and were not in any imminent danger. After Lakhwinder Singh saw Satnam Singh etc. attacking and inflicting injuries on Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh, he exhorted his co-accused, to attack the complainant side. Apart from the exhortation, Lakhwinder Singh is attributed a gun shot from a .315 bore rifle, which did not cause any injury, a gun shot from a . 12 bore double barrel gun, which, as per PW1 Daljit Singh and other prosecution evidence, hit Daljit Singh on his right leg. A perusal of the MLR relating to Daljit Singh, prepared by PW16 Dr.Kirpal Singh reveals multiple wounds on the anterior aspect of the right leg described in detail, in a preceding paragraph of this judgment. The doctor opined that injury no.1 was a fire arm injury but the fire arm was not fired from close range. It would be appropriate to point out the altercation took place between Satnam Singh and Pargat Singh. The appellants Lakhwinder Singh and Simarjit Singh were standing at a distance. The danger to the person of Pargat Singh does not translate into a right to Lakhwinder Singh or Simarjit Singh to defend the person of Pargat Singh and to cause the death of Satnam Singh.
We, therefore, accept the plea of a right of private defence raised by Pargat Singh and acquit him of all charges KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 31 whether under section 302/34 IPC or Section 325 IPC or Section 323 IPC, but cannot extend the right of private defence to Lakhwinder Singh and Simarjit Singh appellants, whether on the ground of imminent danger to their person or to the person of Pargat Singh, their servant.
The question that now calls for an answer is, the offences committed by Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. The case against Simarjit Singh does not pose any difficulty as PW1 Daljit Singh, PW2 Sulakhan Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh have deposed in unison that the gun shot that led to the death of Satnam Singh, was fired by Simarjit Singh. The death of Satnam Singh by a gun shot injury, has been proved by Dr. PW16 Kirpal Singh, who conducted post mortem, extracted pellets from the body of Satnam Singh and opined that a gun shot, from a .12 bore gun, was fired to inflict the injury which was ante mortem in nature and in ordinary course, sufficient to cause death. A .12 bore gun was recovered and has matched with the empty shell recovered during investigation. Lakhwinder Singh is attributed an exhortation and two gun shots, one which missed and the one which hit Daljit Singh on his leg. The exhortation led to his son Satnam Singh firing the fatal gun shot. We, therefore, find Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh guilty under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively and affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, in respect thereof.
KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 32
As regards the conviction and sentence of Lakhwinder Singh, Simarjit Singh and Pargat Singh, under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC, Lakhwinder Singh is attributed an exhortation, a gun shot that did not cause injuries and a gun shot that caused an injury to Daljit Singh. The injury, though simple, is duly corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon and, therefore, does not enable us to grant any relief to Lakhwinder Singh or Simarjit Singh as they acted in concert. Their conviction under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC is fully justified and, therefore, their conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC is maintained.
As regards the conviction of Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh under Section 325/34 and under Section 323/34 IPC, the prosecution version, as discernible from depositions of eye witnesses, PW1 Daljit Singh and PW3 Balwinder Singh is that Daljit Singh etc. received injuries commensurate to the above offences but these injuries are attributed to Pargat Singh and Bikramjit Singh (who has been acquitted).
Pargat Singh is alleged to have inflicted a `datar' blow to Balwinder Singh on the head, face and two reverse side `datar' blows on his right shoulder, a datar blow on the right shoulder of PW2 Sulakhan Singh and two `datar' blow on the right arm and left thumb of PW1 Daljit Singh. As we have already held that Pargat Singh inflicted injuries in self defence after he was attacked by the deceased and PW-1 Daljit etc. Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were not armed with a 'gandasi' or a datar KUMAR VIRENDER and were at a distance. The injuries with 'datar' 2015.03.23 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 33 and gandasi, therefore, cannot be attributed to them and, therefore, are acquitted of offences under sections 323 and 325 IPC.
In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, Criminal Appeal No.D-672-DB of 2009 is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 08.7.2009 and order of sentence dated 10.7.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is modified by acquitting Pargat Singh of all offences but by maintaining the conviction of Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh under Section 302 and Section 302/34 IPC, maintaining the conviction of Lakhwinder Singh under Section 307 IPC and the conviction of Simarjit Singh under Section 307/34 IPC and acquitting them of the other charges. The conviction of Lakhwinder Singh under the Arms Act is also upheld. Simarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, if on bail, shall be taken into custody to undergo the remainder of their sentences.
Criminal Appeal No 1172-DB of 2013 The State of Punjab is, before us, to challenge the acquittal of Bikramjit Singh. A perusal of the evidence on record proves that the complainant party was the aggressor and as injuries on the person of Bikramjit Singh have been proved, the evidence on record do not enable us to interfere with findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Criminal Appeal No.1172-DB of 2013 is, accordingly, dismissed.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE
23rd February, 2015 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )
VK JUDGE
KUMAR VIRENDER
2015.03.23 13:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this docunt
High Court Chandigarh