Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Pb,Etc on 5 November, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2014.11.14 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 (O/M)
Date of decision : 5.11.2014
Harbhajan Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba and Ms. Sagarika, Advocates,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Deputy A.G. Punjab.
-.- -.-
KULDIP SINGH, J.
By this order, I will dispose of CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002, filed by accused/appellants Harbhajan Singh, Bhola Singh, Jarnail Singh, Bikkar Singh, Madan Singh and Chand Singh, against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which they were convicted and sentenced as under :-
Convict Section(s) Sentence Harbhajan Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -2- (on two in its default to further undergo RI for two counts) months (on each count).
324 IPC Nine months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on two counts) 323 IPC Six months RI.
325/149 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days.
Bhola Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
307 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or
in its default to further undergo RI for two months.
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in its default to further undergo RI for two months.
324/149 IPC Nine months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on three counts) 325/149 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days.
Jarnail Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or (on two in its default to further undergo RI for two counts) months (on each count).
324/149 IPC Nine months RI.
323 IPC Six months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on two counts) 325 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days.
Bikkar Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -3-
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or (on two in its default to further undergo RI for two counts) months (on each count).
324/149 IPC Nine months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on two counts) 323 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
325/149 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days.
Madan Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in its default to further undergo RI for two months.
307 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in its default to further undergo RI for two months.
324/149 IPC Nine months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on three counts) 325/149 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days.
Chand Singh 148 IPC Nine months RI.
307/149 IPC Four years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or (on two in its default to further undergo RI for two counts) months (on each count).
324/149 IPC Nine months RI.
323/149 IPC Six months RI (on each count).
(on three counts) 325/149 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in its default to further undergo RI for 15 days. SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -4- The prosecution story, as coming out from the statement (Ex.PH) dated 18.4.2000, made by Hardev Singh (complainant) before Jagdish Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Joga, is that Baljit Kaur, his mother's sister's daughter is married with Jangir Singh son of Fateh Singh of their village. She has three sons, namely, Buta Singh, Baldev Singh and Major Singh, who have land dispute with Harbhajan Singh and Bhola Singh, the sons-in-law of Karnail Singh son of Bishan Singh, who had given his land measuring 1½ killas to Baldev Singh son of Jangir Singh by way of oral gift. Baldev Singh was cultivating the said land. On 17th April, 2000, Bhola Singh son of Milkha Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Ajit Singh, residents of Ubha, went to the house of Baldev Singh, where Hardev Singh was also present and there they stated that today they will reap their wheat crop and saying so, they went away. Thereafter, Hardev Singh accompanied by Baldev Singh and his younger brother, Major Singh, went to the fields. It was moonlit night. They saw Harbhajan Singh son of Ajit Singh, duly armed with Takua, Bhola Singh son of Milkha Singh, armed with Kasuli, Madan Singh son of Chand Singh, armed with Dang, Jarnail Singh son of Jangir Singh, resident of Dalel Singh Wala, armed with Soti and Bikkar Singh, resident of Dalel Singh Wala, armed with Soti, were consuming liquor while sitting in the field. When Hardev Singh, PW SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -5- and others entered the field, it was around 9:45 PM. Harbhajan Singh and others pounced upon them and threatened them to teach a lesson for entering the field and simultaneously, Harbhajan Singh wielded Takua hitting Hardev Singh on his face, lips and cheeks. He picked up the Takua and give two Takua blows, hitting Baldev Singh on his forehead and the other blow hit him near his eye. Thereafter, Bhola Singh gave two Kasuli blows on the back of his head. Hardev Singh and Major Singh raised alarm of 'Mar-ditta, Mar-ditta'. Jarnail Singh gave Soti blow on his left arm while Bikkar Singh caused injuries with his Soti on his left foot. Thereafter, they all caused injuries to Baldev Singh with their respective weapons, while he lay fallen on the ground, hitting him on his right arm, backside, waist, both legs and feet. Thereafter, accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. The motive behind the occurrence was that the land that was given by Karnail Singh to Baldev Singh, was intended to be grabed by Harbhajan Singh and others. Thereafter, Major Singh removed them to Joga Hospital and got them admitted there.
The ASI recorded the police proceedings and sent the same to the police station, where formal FIR No. 23 dated 18.4.2000 under Sections 323/325/506/148 and 149 IPC was recorded. The ASI then inspected the place of occurrence, from where the blood SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -6- stained earth was taken into possession. Later on, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.
During the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested and the respective weapons used in the offence were recovered from them. After the receipt of X-ray report, offence under Section 325 IPC was added. The doctor opined that from the X-ray of skull, no bone injury was detected. The doctor further opined that injuries No. 1 to 6 were simple in nature, whereas X-ray report of injury No. 10 showed fracture of left lower end of ulna and was declared grievous in nature.
After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.
The trial Court chargesheeted all the accused under Sections 307/323/324/325/506/148/149 IPC. On recording plea, accused did not plead guilty.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. S.P. Bansal (PW1), Dr. Jagtar Singh (PW2), Hardev Singh (complainant/PW3), Baldev Singh (PW4), SI/IO Hardam Singh (PW5), ASI/IO Jagdish Kumar (PW6) and closed the evidence after tendering into evidence the certified copy of order dated 23.2.1999, passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mansa.
In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -7- the accused took the plea that Baldev Singh (PW1), wanted to grab their land bearing khasra No. 164//13(8-0) and 14(4-5), situated in village Ubha, forcibly. On the day of occurrence, Harbhajan Singh and Bhola Singh were in their fields. Baldev Singh etc. came at night to cause injuries and take forcible possession of their standing crop of wheat where the fight took place in their fields. It was stated that some wheat crop was already cut, some of wheat was reaped, while some crop was standing. Complainants Baldev Singh, Major Singh, Hardev Singh and Gurcharan Singh were drunkard. It was night time and it was a free fight. He does not know who caused injuries to Baldev Singh and Hardev Singh. In defence, accused produced certified copy of the judgment and decree sheet dated 12.3.1999 (Ex.DA and Ex.DB), certified copy of judgment and decree sheet dated 11.9.1999 (Ex.DC and Ex.DD) and copy of order dated 15.2.2000 (Ex. DE) and closed the defence evidence.
After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and going through the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the accused/appellants, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also carefully gone through the file.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -8-
PW2 Dr. Jagtar Singh, who had medico legally examined Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh (injured) as well as Bhola Singh (accused), has stated that on 18.4.2000, at 3:15 AM, he medico legally examined Hardev Singh and found following four injuries on his person :-
"1. A lacerated wound of size 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of upper lip (inner side) clotted blood was present.
2. A reddish bluish contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.2 cm inner aspect of left lower lip tender on palpation.
3. An abrasion of size 5.0 cm x 0.2 cm on the left side of upper cheek.
4. A reddish contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.01 cms on the left side outer aspect of lower margin of lip. Tender on palpation."
All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. The probable time of all the injuries was between 6 to 8 hours and the kind of weapon used for all the injuries was blunt.
On the same day, at about 3:20 AM, Dr. Jagtar Singh (PW2) also medico legally examined Baldev Singh (PW4) and following 16 injuries were found on his person :-
"1. Curve shape wound of size 3.5 cm x 0.5 cms x deep to one on the lateral margin of right eye. Clotted blood was present.
2. An incised wound size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x deep to SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -9- bone on the anterior aspect of frontal bone middle part, 2.0 cms above the foot of nose, clotted blood was present.
3. An incised wound size 3.2 x 0.5 cms x deep to bone on the right parietal bone of skull. Clotted blood was present.
4. An incised wound of size 2.5 x 0.5 cms into deep to bone on the right parietal bone, 2.0 cms below the injury No. 3.
5. An incised wound of size 5.5 x 0.5 cms x deep to bone on the left parietal bone of skull, clotted blood was present.
6. An incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x deep to bone on the left parietal bone of skull 2.0 cms below injury No. 5, clotted blood was present. Advised X-ray skull A.P. and anterior view and lateral view.
7. A reddish black contusion of size whole of the right shoulder with profuse swelling on the lateral margin of upper aspect of right shoulder. Movements were restricted and painful. Advised X-ray right shoulder posterior and anterior view.
8. A reddish black contusion of size 6.0 cms x 2.5 cms on the right lateral margin of elbow.
9. A reddish black contusion of size 10.0 cms x 3.5 cms on the right chest war. Advised X-ray chest PA view.
10. A deformity on the left wrist joint, unable to lift upward the left hand, crepitis present. X-ray left forearm with wrist AP and lateral view.
11. A reddish contusion of size 4.5 cms x 3.5 cms on SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -10- the lateral aspect of right lower thigh, tender on palpation.
12. A swelling of size 4.5 cms x 3.5 cms on the right tibial tubrcle. All movements were painful and restricted.
13. A reddish black swelling on the back of lumber region of spine, tender on palpation. Advised X-ray lumber region AP view.
14. A reddish contusion of size 4.0 cms x 3.0 cms on the right superior anterior iliac spine.
15. A reddish contusion of size 6.0 cm x 2.0 cms on the left lateral aspect of thigh.
16. A swelling of size 6 cms x 5 cms on the dorsal aspect of left foot, tender on palpation. Advised X-ray left foot. AP view."
The duration of injuries was between 6 to 8 hours. Injuries No. 1 to 6 were simple in nature and injury No. 10 was grievous as there was fracture of left lower end of ulna.
Dr. Jagtar Singh (PW2) further stated that on 18.4.2000, at 12:10 PM, he also examined Bhola Singh son of Milka Singh and found following four injuries on his person :-
"1. A reddish black contusion of size 6.0 cm x 5 cm on the anterior aspect of left leg, 2.0 cm below the tibial toberele. All movements restricted and painful. The injured was unable to bear the weight on left leg. Advised x-ray left leg with AP and lateral view.
2. A reddish contusion of size 6.1 cm x 2.1 cm on the upper border of right scapula, tender on palpation.SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -11-
3. A reddish black swelling on the right shoulder joint. The injured was unable to move his right forearm, upwards. All type of movements restricted and painful. Advised x-ray right shoulder joint. AP lateral.
4. A lacerated wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into 0.5 cm on the lateral aspect of right elbow joint 1.0 cms above the lateral epicondyle of humerous."
All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon. It is to be noted that injury No. 1 on the person of Bhola Singh was found to be fracture on both the bones of the left leg and were later on declared as grievous.
Dr. S.P. Bansal (PW1) proved the X-ray of skull, forearm, lumber region, right shoulder, left side of chest and left foot of Baldev Singh and stated that no bone injury was found in the skull. There was fracture of lower end of the ulna. The other injuries did not show any bone injury.
So far as the statements of Hardev Singh (complainant/PW3) and Baldev Singh (injured/PW4) are concerned, they have stood by the version given by the prosecution above and stated that the occurrence took place at 9:45 PM.
Learned senior counsel for the accused/appellant has vehemently argued that in this case, the trial Court gravely erred in convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307 IPC. It is stated that the trial Court has recorded the finding that the accused SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -12- party was in possession of the disputed land and, therefore, they acted in the right of private defence. However, it was also held that they exceeded their right of private defence. It is stated that the fact that there were 16 injuries on the person of Baldev Singh (injured) weighed in the mind of the Court while convicting the accused.
The learned senior counsel has taken this Court through the finding recorded by the trial Court in para-18 of the judgment, wherein after discussing the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, it was held that accused party was in actual possession of the disputed property. The learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants has also referred to the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which are reproduced below :-
"..... Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh and Major Singh being out of possession had no right to enter the field. Harbhajan Singh, accused has come up with the plea that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith Bhola Singh and others were present in the field dispute, where meanwhile, Baldev Singh and others came at night to cause injuries and take forcible possession of their standing wheat crop, where the fight took place and at the relevant time, Baldev Singh, Major Singh, Hardev Singh and Gurcharan Singh were dead drunk and it was a free fight and he does not know who caused injuries to Baldev Singh and Hardev Singh. Similar plea has been SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -13- adopted by his co-accused. Thus, obviously, the taking place of fight between the parties has been admitted by the accused. There is not even an iota of doubt that the accused party being in the actual physical possession, was well within its right to protect the possession of the land and they could go even to the extent to cause injuries to the complainant party, but by modulation, meaning thereby that the restrictions as enshrined in Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code fettered them not to exceed their right of private defence. Thus, the question arises, as to whether or not, the accused did exercise their right of private defence, as warranted by Section 99 ibid or with the parameter of law."
Learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants has argued that all the injures on the person of Hardev Singh were simple in nature and except injury No. 10, all the injuries on the person of Baldev Singh were also simple in nature. Though, some of them were incised wound and stated to have been caused with sharp edged weapon. However, there were four injuries on the head of Hardev Singh, but no fracture of bone was found. Therefore, the offences are primarily covered under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC. It has been further argued that at no time, life of Hardev Singh was in danger nor the injuries were found to be dangerous to life. Even from the perusal of injuries, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused party to cause the death of SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -14- Baldev Singh. The learned senior counsel has argued that the accused party was well within its right to cause simple and grievous injuries to protect their possession.
A perusal of the judgment and decree (Ex.DA) shows that in the civil case, Baldev Singh failed to prove that he is in possession of the disputed property. Therefore, I concur with the finding recorded by the trial Court that the accused party was in possession of disputed property.
Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides where there is no right of private defence and extent to which the right of private defence may be exercised. Section 99 IPC is reproduced as under :-
"99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence.--
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -15- justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised.
The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Explanation 1.-A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.
Explanation 2.-A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded."
Section 103 IPC provides for cases where subject to restrictions mentioned in Section 99 IPC, the death of the wrong doer could be caused. Section 103 IPC reads as under :-
"103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.--
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -16- voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
First.- Robbery;
Secondly.- House-breaking by night; Thirdly.- Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
Fourthly.- Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised."
The learned senior counsel has further referred to Section 104 IPC, which is reproduced as under :-
"104. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.--If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death."SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -17-
Learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants has also referred to the authority of the Apex Court in Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333, wherein regarding the right of private defence, it has observed as under :-
"23. It is a settled position of law that in order to justify the act of causing death of the assailant, the accused has simply to satisfy the Court that he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. The weapon used, the manner and nature of assault and other surrounding circumstances should be taken into account while evaluating whether the apprehension was justified or not.
24. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
25. When enacting sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, excepting from its penal provisions, certain classes of acts, done in good faith for the purpose of repelling unlawful aggressions, the Legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage the manly spirit of self-defence amongst the citizens, when faced with grave danger. The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -18- than to run away in face of danger. The right of private defence is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered within the prescribed limits."
It has been argued that in this case, the death has not been caused. It is proved from the medical evidence that Bhola Singh, one of the accused, was given grievous injury. Both the bones of his left leg were fractured. It has been argued that when the accused, who were in lawful possession of the disputed land, were sitting in their own land, they were assaulted and Hardev Singh fractured both the bones of left leg of one of them, namely, Bhola Singh, then the accused were well within their right to cause simple and grievous injuries to the assailants. It has been stated that there was fracture of the left lower end of ulna of Baldev Singh, which is a non vital part. There is no grievous injury on the head of Baldev Singh. Therefore, the accused lawfully exercised their right of private defence to cause simple and grievous injuries to protect their person and property, particularly after Bhola Singh was given grievous injury by fracturing his left leg. It has been further argued that after such a fracture, Bhola Singh could not cause injury or run away and allegation in this regard in the statements of the witnesses is apparently incorrect.
I agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants. In this case, the accused party was in SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -19- lawful possession of the disputed property, which was the bone of contention between the parties. Baldev Singh had already lost litigation before the Civil Court, in which he had claimed his possession over the disputed land measuring 12 kanal 5 marlas, as coming out from the judgment and order (Ex.DC and Ex.DE). Therefore, when the accused party was assaulted by Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh and Major Singh etc. in their fields with their respective weapons and the left leg of Bhola Singh (accused) was fractured, they had the right of private defence to protect their person and property and were well within their right to cause simple and grievous injury to the assailants. Only minor injuries were given to Hardev Singh, whereas 16 injuries were given to Baldev Singh, out of which 15 were simple in nature and only one injury was grievous, which is on the lower end of the ulna, which is a non vital part.
It being so, the impugned order convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307/325/324/323/149/148 IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Accused/appellants Harbhajan Singh and Madan Singh are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. They are ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if any, paid by the accused/appellants be refunded to them. SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.11.14 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA No. S-1096-SB of 2002 -20-
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
5.11.2014
sjks
Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes