Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh Etc vs State Ofpb on 31 January, 2025
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(1)
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
1. CR
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M)
Gurcharan Singh & others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. CRA
CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M)
Jagdev Singh & another ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
3. CR
CRR-995-2005 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh & others ... Respondents
Date of Decision
Decision:- 31.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for appellant No.2 in CRA-D-63
63-2005 and
for respondent No.2 in CRR-995
995-2005.
Mr. S.S.Narula, Mr. Baljinder Singh & Mr. Raman B.Garg,
Advocates, for appellant No.2 in CRA
CRA-D-90-DB-2005 and
for respondent No.4 in CRR-995
995-2005.
Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for the petitioner in CRR-995-2005.
2005.
Mr. Harkanwarjeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.02.01 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M)
CRA-D-90-DB-2005
2005 (O&M); &
CRR-995-2005
2005 (O&M)
(2)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
J
1. This is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned above mentioned set of two appeals and a revision petition. The names of all the appellants/petitioner are stated herein under:
Appeals against conviction:
conviction Case No. Appellants Findings of the trial Court Relief Sought CRA-D- 1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC Appellants 63-DB- & u/s /s 148 IPC seek acquittal
2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi 2005
3. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) CRA-D- 1. Jagdev Singh (expired) Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC Appellants 90-DB- & u/s 148 IPC seek acquittal
2. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 2005 Revision by the complainant/injured:
complainant/ Case No. Petitioner/Respondents Findings of the trial Relief Sought Court CRR-995- JASWANT SINGH Petitioner seeks 2005 Versus enhancement of
1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) Respondents No.1 to sentence of Resp.
2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi no. 1 to 5 5 stand convicted convicted.
3. Jagdev Singh (expired) AND ALSO
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi seeks setting aside
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) Respondents espondents No. No.6 & of acquittal of
6. Surinder Kaur (expired) 7 stand acquitted Resp. no.6 & 7
7. Satwant Kaur (expired)
2. As per prosecution, pursuant to receipt of an intimation on 22.03.2002 at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur regarding admission of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh Singh, the police visited the hospital. While Amarjit Singh was found to have been referred to DMC, Ludhiana, Ludhiana the police was able to record the statement of Jaswant Singh (Ex.PL). Amarjit Singh, however, could not survive and succumbed to injuries in DMC, Ludhiana on 26.03.2002. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (3)
3. The FIR (Ex.PQ) came to be lodged on the basis of state statement (Ex.PL) made by Jaswant Singh (complainant), (complainant), wherein he stated that he is an agriculturist and that about two years back, back, they had purchased some land in the area of Bassi Daud Khan from Balwant Singh where Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop and as had been agreed agreed, Gurcharan Singh etc. had harvested the sugarcane crop. On 22.03.2002 at about 7.30 AM AM, Gurcharan Singh, his son Gurmit Singh @ Laddi, his brother brother-in-law Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, Kaka son of Ram Lubhaya, Surinder Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and Satwinder Kaur wife of Jagdev Singh started ploughing the land in question with a 'Massey' tractor. The complainant alleged that when he objected to the same and asked them (Gurcharan Singh & others) that some person from the village be associated, as had been agreed earlier and thereafter they could plough the land, land Gurcharan Singh raised a ''lalkara' exhorting his companionss that the complainant be not spared. Gurcharan Singh inflicted a blow with 'kirpan' ' ' on the left han hand of the complainant. Jagdev Singh gave a blow with 'dang' ' on complainant's left shoulder. Kaka inflicted a blow with 'dang' ' ' on the left thigh of the complainant. The two ladies threw brick-bats.
brick bats. The complainant further alleged that around that time Amarjit Singh also came there so as to collected ''Theka' in respect of land, but he was also given brick-bats brick bats blows by the ladies on his head and resultantly he fell down. All the accused took Amarjit Singh to their fields on their tractor.
tractor Gurcharan Singh gh was exhorting them that he (Amarjit Singh) be not spared and be killed. Gurmit Singh inflicted a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (4) blow with 'kirpan' ' on the right hand of Amarjit Singh. Jagdev, Surinder Singh and Kaka inflicted blows with their respective ''dangs' to Amarjit Singh hitting ing him on various parts of body. On account of hue and cry having been raised, father of Amarjit Singh came to the spot and shifted the complainant and Amarjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur from where Amarjit Singh was referred to DMC, Ludhiana Ludhiana. The complainant further stated therein that the entire occurrence was witnessed by his brother Surinder Singh and that all the accused after the occurrence had run away alongwith their respective weapons. It is alleged that the motive for inflicting injuries injuries was that the accused wanted to take possession of the land, which had been purchased by the complainant & others and that they had also come to take possession of the same and when they restrained the accused from doing so, then he (complainant) and Amarjit Singh were caused injuries.
4. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of Amarjit Singh were conducted. The dead body of Amarjit Singh was got subjected ubjected to post-mortem post mortem examination. The medical record pertaining to injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh was collected from the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Statements of witnesses es were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of investigation, the police found 5 out of 7 accused to have participated in the commission of offence, whereas 2 of the co-accused co accused i.e. the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (5) Satwant Kaur were found innocent. Accordingly, challan was presented against 5 accused namely Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh @ Ladi, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka on 24.05.2002 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, who upon finding that the facts prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/324/323/148/149 IPC committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.06.2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur finding sufficient grounds to presume that the accused had committed the offence in question accordingly framed charges against 5 accused on 04.09.2002.
5. Subsequently, after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning two more co-accused accused i.e. Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2003 and upon securing their presence, fresh charges were framed against all the 7 accused on 13.05.2003.
6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 9 PWs, the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to he herein-under:-
PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan, Chohan, who had conducted post post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh, described 8 injuries found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death was the injury injur on the head as well as other injuries leading to shock and haemorrhage, haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the copy of post post-mortem report as Ex.PA.VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (6) PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiar Hoshiarpur, who had medico legally examined Amarjit Singh, when he was initiall taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, proved the MLR in initially respect of Amarjit Singh as Ex.PD, wherein he described 9 injuries found on the person of Amarjit Singh. He also stated that on the same day, he had also medico legally examined Jaswant Singh and had found three injuries on his person which he described in MLR (Ex.PE).
( PW-3 Dr. Ashish Ohri, Registrar, Department of Surgery, DMCH, Ludhiana, produced the record pertaining to admission of Amarjit Ludhiana, Singh in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and stated that the patient (Amarjit Singh) expired on 26.03.2002 and that he had sent the intimation to the police in this regard.
PW-4 Jaswant Singh - complainant at whose instance the FIR in question had been lodged stated broadly in tune with the version recorded in the FIR, which has already been referred to above.
PW-5 Surinder Singh, Singh, brother of the complainant, who as per the FIR hadd witnessed the occurrence stated in support of the case of prosecution and has described the occurrence broadly in tune with the allegations recorded in the FIR.
PW-6 Kulwant Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, produced the registration certificate in respect of tractor bearing registration No. No.PB-07-H-1748, , which as per record was found to be registered in the name of Gurcharan Singh.
S PW-7 Raj Kumar, Patwari, stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PN.
PW-8 SI Onkar Dutt stated that on 22.03.2002, he was posted at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when an information was received VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (7) regarding admission of Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and pursuant to the same, he went to the Civil Hospital, where he came to know that Amarjit Singh had already been referred to DMCH, Ludhiana. However, Jaswant Singh was present and he recorded recorded his statement (Ex.PL), which was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. He further stated that upon receipt of information on 27.03.2002 regarding death of Amarjit Singh, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana and prepared inquest report Ex.PC and got the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh conducted. He stated that 4 of the accused namely Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal and Surinder Singh were arrested on 06.04.2002, as they had surrendered in the Court on 04.04.2002. He further stated that he had interrogated Gurmit Singh on 08.04.2002. During the course of cross-examination, cross examination, he stated that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the accused and that he had gone to the place of occurrence on 5th day and that he had not lifted any blood stained soil from the spot.
PW-9 ASI Mohinder Pal stated that on 15.04.2002, he was posted at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He stated that accused Gurcharan Singh had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.04.2002 and was arrested on 24.04.2002. He further deposed that on 26.04.2002 .04.2002,, he interrogated Gurcharan Singh during the course of which he made a disclosure statement Ex.PV regarding his tractor No.PB No.PB-07-H-1748 and pursuant to the same, the said tractor was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW. He further stated with regard to investigation conducted by him and that upon conclusion of investigation, challan had be been presented.VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (8)
7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded false implication. Accused Gurcharan Singh, however, raised a plea that he along with Satwant Kaurr and Gian Kaur was owner of the property in question and that Gian Kaur had sold her share to Balwant Singh and Balwant Singh further sold it to Jaswant Singh - complainant, but the share was sold without possession. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question. He pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible possession ion of the property and that he had furnished surety bonds for release of Amarjit Singh, as Amarjit Singh was undergoing life imprisonment for murder. He further stated that when Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh had come on a tractor belonging to the compl complainant, the tractor 'jumped jumped' and resultantly Amarjit Singh fell down from the tractor and had sustained injuries and that the police, however, planted a false case upon the accused. The accused in their defence examined as many as 4 PWs, the gist of whose statements is stated to herein-under:
DW-1 Parveen Puri, Senior Clerk working in Punjabi newspaper 'Ajit' on the basis of the summoned record, stated that in the newspaper published on 09.08.1996, a public notice had been issued regarding disinheritance of Gurmit Singh by his father Gurcharan Singh He produced the photocopy of public notice as Ex.D2. Singh.
DW-2 Darshan Singh, SP, Vigilance stated that pursuant to an application filed by Kamal Saini wife of accused Surinder Singh, he had conducted an enquiry and had found that Surinder Singh VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) (9) was on duty on the relevant day at Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur.
DW-3 Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, Criminal Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh brought the file pertaining to CRM CRM-44768-M-2003 2003 titled 'Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others' and produced the certified tified copy of the petition as Ex.D4.
DW-4 HC Des Raj, Raj, Police Station Dadar, Hoshiarpur, brought the record pertaining to the following FIRs FIR exhibited as Ex.D5, D6, D7 & D8:
1. FIR No.147 dated 28.06.1998 under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Gurdip Singh @ Babbi against Amarjit Singh & others
2. FIR No.149 dated 06.07.1998 under Sections 323, 452 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Joginder Kaur against Amarjit Singh & others
3. FIR No.13 dated 15.01.1999 under Sections 452, 148, 149, 429 IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Jagdip Singh against Amarjit Singh & others
4. FIR No.123 dated 14.05.1999 under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Jarnail Singh against Amarjit Singh & others
8. The accused also tendered into evidence report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
pertaining to FIR No.395 No. dated 08.11.2002 and orders passed by the Civil Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Suit No.303 of 1999 and thereafter closed their evidence.
9. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, acquitted Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur of all the charges framed against them, but held that the prosecution had been VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 10 ) successful in establishing its case against Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka and accordingly, convicted convicted and sentenced them as under:
1. 1. Gurcharan Singh, To undergo life imprisonment under Section 302
2. Gurmit Singh, IPC read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine
3. Jagdev Singh, of Rs.2000/- each
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka
2. 1. Gurcharan Singh, To undergo RI for 3 years under Section 148 IPC
2. Gurmit Singh,
3. Jagdev Singh,
4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi
5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka
3. Gurcharan Singh To undergo RI for 2 years under Section 324 IPC and to further pay a fine of Rs.1000/ Rs.1000/-
4. 1. Jagdev Singh To undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323
2. Surinder Pal @ Kaka IPC
10. It may here be mentioned that out of 5 accused, who had been convic convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, Court, 3 have expired and proceedings qua them already stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024. Even the two acquitted co-accused co namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur (respondents No.6 & 7 in CRR CRR-995-2005) have expired and proceedings qua them also stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024. Consequently, the appeals as well as revision survive only against 2 convicts/accused namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment as regards conviction of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi,, submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that admittedly it is a case where accused party VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) was in possession of the agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place and that the complainant party had come there to take forcible possession of the said land leading to the incident in question. It has been submitted tted that even if the allegations pertaining to the accused having inflicting injuries to the complainant and to the deceased are taken to be correct, still no offence can be said to be committed by the accused, as they had acted in self-defence.
self
12. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where a very specific account of the occurrence has been narrated by the complainant in the FIR, wherein not only all the accused have been specifically named, but roles are also attri attributed specifically to them. It has been submitted that the complainant - Jaswant Singh (PW-4) while in the witness-box witness box stated absolutely in consonance with the version got recorded by him in the FIR, which is corroborated not only by the other eye-witness witness i.e. PW-55 Surinder Singh, but is duly borne out from the medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh and PW-22 Dr. O.P.Gojra, O.P.Gojra who have proved the medical record in the shape of post-mortem post mortem report and medico legal report and have also furnished opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased. Leaned State counsel further submitted that even if the contention raised before this Court as regards accused having caused injuries in self self-defence is accepted to be correct, still it is apparent that the injuries caused by the accused are far in excess of the threat perception inasmuch as none from the complainant side was armed with any weapon and in fact all the 7 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) accused were out-numbering out the 2 persons from the complainant side i.e. the complainant and the deceased. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision petition submitted that the sentence sentence imposed upon the two accused i.e. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi is on the lesser side and that the same be enhanced and compensation be also awarded out of the enhanced fine that may be imposed.
14. We have considered rival submissions submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case.
15. Before proceeding to examine the oral evidence led by the complainant to support his version and also the plea of self self-defence being raised by the accused, it is apposite appo to first of all examine the medical record pertaining to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the deceased and the cause of death. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 22.03.2002, the accused accused had inflicted injuries to complainant - Jaswant Singh and also to deceased - Amarjit Singh Singh. The prosecution has examined PW-2 PW Dr. O.P.Gojra,, who stated that on 22.03.2002, Amarjit Singh, who had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur was medico co legally examined by him and he had found the following injuries on his person:
VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 13 ) "1. There was a swelling of 5 cm in diameter on left temporal region just above the left pinna. An abrasion of 5 cm on the swelling there was bleeding from left ear. Surgical Surgical opinion was advised.
2. Bleeding left ear. Advised ENT and Surgical opinion.
3. Deformity with un-natural natural moment of left leg in lower part. Ortho opinion was advised.
4. Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen.
Ortho opinion advised.
5. An incised wound on the dorsal surface of right thumb underlying bone cut (near and behind the nail). Fresh bleeding was present.
6. An abrasion on the medical side of right forearm in middle (13 x 2 cm) advised X-ray.
X
7. Multiple contusions contusions of left elbow joint extending to arm (all along) X X-
ray was advised.
8. Multiple reddish contusions ranging from 30 cm x 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm on back. (Whole) X-ray X ray was advised.
9. Multiple abrasions on right leg in lower 1/3rd (Reddish abrasion).
Advised X-ray."
X
16. He further deposed that injury No.5 had been declared grievous and that the weapon used for causing the said injury was sharp while the remaining injuries had been caused with a blunt edged weapon. During the course of cross-examination, examination, he stated that injury No.5 could also be possible on account of striking with the edge of the mudguard of tractor and the remaining could be possible on account of fall from the tractor. Amarjit Singh was referred to the DMCH, Ludhiana on the same day where he remained under treatment, but ultimately succumbed to injuries on 26.03.2002. The dead body was got subject to post post-mortem examination, which was conducted by PW-1 PW Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan Chohan, who proved VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 14 ) the post-mortem mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries on the dead body as under:
"1. Blackish abrasion of 0.5 cm in diameter above the left pinna present and there was a swelling 5 cm in diameter.
2. Deformity of fracture of left leg in lower part was pres present on dissection of the leg, the tibia and fibula was fractured in the lower 1/3 of the bones. There was clotted blood present all around the fracture.
3. Swelling of right hand with no underlying fracture.
4. Incised wound on dorsal surface of the right thumb present, underlying bone cut behind the nail.
5. Blackish abrasion on medial side of right forearm in its middle 13x2 cm.
6. Blackish multiple abrasion contusion present on the left elbow joint extending to arm.
7. Multiple contusion ranging from 30 cm to 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm its back.
8. Multiple abrasion on right leg in lower 1/3 black in colour.
colour."
17. PW-11 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan opined that cause of death of Amarjit Singh was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leadi leading to shock and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During the course of cross cross-examination, PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Sing Chohan stated that there could be possibility of injuries having been caused to Amarjit Singh Singh if he had fallen from the tractor, but the same could be possible if he is dragged in different postures. The MLR as well as the post-mortem post mortem report clearly show the existence of the injuries, which were found on the person of Amarjit Singh immediately when he was taken to the hospital ospital on the day of occurrence itself. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 15 )
18. Although during the course of cross-examination, cross examination, the accused put questions to the Doctors concerned regarding possibility of the injuries having been caused on account of fall from the tractor, which the Doctors did not categorically deny, but PW-1 PW 1 Dr. Suridner Singh Chohan has clarified that the possibility could only be there in case the deceased was also dragged in different postures. In the present case, a perusal of the descriptionn of injuries shows that the injuries are on various parts of body on the left and right side. It is not borne out from any record that the deceased had been dragged in different directions after the alleged fall from the tractor. Under these circumstances, circumstances, the suggestion on behalf of the accused that the injuries were not caused by the accused but were result of fall from the tractor is solely misconceived. It is, thus, held that the injuries as found on the person of the deceased had been inflicted to him by some persons and is not result of fall from the tractor. PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan has categorically opined regarding the cause of death to be the injuries. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity of the opinion of the Doctor in this regard. Consequently, it is held that Amarjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him.
19. As regards the injuries sustained by complaina complainant - Jaswant Singh, he was also taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 22.03.2002,, where he was medico legally examined by PW PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, who found the following injuries on his person:
"1. Two parallel incised wounds 3 cm x 2 cm (5 cm apart on the left palmer surface just below the matacarpo region lower starts just VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 16 ) before the wound No.1. Fresh bleeding present.) Advised X X-
ray.
2. Pain in left shoulder joint. No external mark of injury see seen.
n.
Advised X-ray.
3. Complaint of pain in left thigh in the middle. No external mark of injury seen. Advised X-ray.""
20. PW-22 Dr. O.P.Gojra opined that injury No.1 has been caused with a sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blu blunt nt weapon.
He further stated that all the three injuries were declared as simple in nature. Nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross cross-
examination of the Doctors so as to doubt the existence of the injuries on the person of injured/deceased injured/deceased or as regards the nature.
21. PW-44 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness witness-box described the manner in which the injuries were caused to him as well as to Amarjit Singh on 22.03.2002, when they had objected to ploughing of fields by Gurcharan charan Singh & others. He stated that when he had objected to the same, Gurcharan Singh had raised a 'lalkara 'lalkara' and had inflicted an injury with the help of 'kirpan' ' on his right hand and that thereafter Jaswant Singh inflicted a blow with 'dang' ' on his left shoulder and Surinder Pal @ Kaka also gave a blow with 'dang' ' ' on his left thigh. He further stated that the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur started pelting brick-bats bats as a result of which injuries were caused on the head of Amarji Amarjit Singh, who had also come there to collect lease money from the complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna. He further stated that Amarjit Singh was lifted by all the 7 accused in the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 17 ) tractor and was taken to wheat fields belonging belonging to them and that Gurmit Singh had inflicted a blow with 'kirpan' ' ' on the right hand of Amarjit Singh.. He further deposed that Gurcharan Singh had raised a ''lalkara' exhorting his companions that Amarjit Singh be not spared and be killed and upon which Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka started inflicting 'dang' blows on the person of Amarjit Singh. He further stated that his brother Surinder Singh had also witnessed the occurrence.
ence. PW-55 Surinder Singh, brother of the complainant, also gave a narration of the incident in the identical manner, as stated by PW PW-4 Jaswant Singh (complainant).
22. The ocular version as regards inflicting of injuries by the accused, as spelt out byy the aforesaid two witnesses i.e. PW-4 PW 4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) and PW-55 Surinder Singh, Singh remained un-sh shattered despite lengthy cross-
examination and as such, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings of the trial Court to the extent that the injuries found on the person of injured/complainant and the deceased had been caused by the accused. However, the material question before this Court is as to whether the injuries caused by the accused had been caused by them in their self-defence defence so as to protect their property which they were in possession i.e. land where the occurrence had taken place.
23. It is pertinent to notice that it is the specific case of the complainant that they had purchased the land about 2 years back from Balwant Singh and that Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop in the field which the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 18 ) complainant had purchased and that it had be been agreed that Gurcharan Singh after harvesting the sugarcane crop would hand over the possession to the complainant. The said fact is not only stated in the FIR, but has also been stated so in the witness-box box by PW-4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) In fact in the FIR, the complainant had also got recorded (complainant).
that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the property in question to take possession. During the course of cross cross-examination, PW-4 Jaswant Singh stated as under:
"...........It ...........It is however correct that Swaran Singh was the father of Piar Piara Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The estate of Swaran Singh devolved upon his sons only on the basis of the Will ill and the daughters of Swaran Singh were consenting parties to Will. I do not know if Satwant Kaur and Joginder Kaur instituted a suit (civil) claiming the share to the estate of their father before the present incident. The disputed land which we purchased from Balwant Singh of Swarn Cinema is the same land which was belonging to Piara Singh. The compromise that the possession of the land would be delivered to us after harvesting the sugarcane crop was written compromise.
compromise. The written compromise was handed over to the police and copy of the same is also with us. I can produce the compromise document in the court."
court.
24. It has also been admitted by the complainant that he had been proceeded against for security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. about 8 days prior to the occurrence, which had been initiated on an application filed by Gurcharan Singh and his wife and that he (complainant) also moved an application. The aforesaid position suggests that it is a case where the complainant party had purchased the land in question from Balwant Singh, but at the time of purchase, possession of the pr property had VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 19 ) not been handed over to the complainant and it had been agreed that the same would be handed over after the sugarcane crop standing on the fields is harvested by Gurcharan Singh. It appears that Gurcharan Singh & others, however, did not hand over over possession of the land in question despite having harvested the sugarcane crop and rather started ploughing the land, which was objected to by the complainant resulting in the fight in question. In other words, although physical possession of the prop property was supposed to be delivered to the complainant party after harvesting of sugarcane crop, but the same was not delivered and apparently it is the accused who were still in possession of the same.
25. Under these circumstances, when the accused were in possession of the property in question and the complainant and Amarjit Singh (deceased) went on the tractor to the fields, the accused who were in possession of the property, even if in unauthorized possession, did have a right of self self-
defence to protect protec their property. The occurrence having taken place in the disputed property and the accused apprehending forcible dispossession caused injuries to the complainant and to the deceased deceased.
26. However, it needs to be noticed that it is a case where the complainant was accompanied by one more person only i.e. Amarjit Singh, whereas the accused were numbering seven. Neither the complainant nor the deceased were stated to be armed with any weapon. Under these circumstances, the act of the accused having inflicting as many as 9 injuries to Amarjit Singh and 3 injuries to Jaswant Singh including 1 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 20 ) incised wound on each of them, was certainly not justified and the said action was not in proportion to the threat perception.
27. Some of the relevant provisions pertaining to 'self defence' as embodied in IPC need to be borne in mind. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Under Section 97 every person has a right, right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend his own body, and the body of another person person, against any offence affecting the human body. Under Section 99 the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm th than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Under Section 100, right of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence which occasions the exercise of such right is an assault which reasonably causes an apprehension of death death or grievous hurt, amongst others. Under Section 101, save as provided by Section 99, the right extends to the voluntary causing to the assailment of any harm other than death. Under Section 102 the right once available continues as long as an apprehens apprehension of danger to the body continues. When the apprehension of danger has ceased and yet a person continues his attack, he exceeds the right of private defence. Section 103 defines situations where such right can even extend to causing death.
28. As alreadyy noticed above, it is a case where not only the complainant (Jaswant Singh) and the deceased (Amarjit Singh) were outnumbered by the accused, but they were even unarmed. Under these circumstances, even if the complainant and the deceased ha had entered into the property VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 21 ) possessed by the accused, the same did not give them a right to cause death of Amarjit Singh. Though during the course of arguments, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the complainant/revisionist submitted that a specific plea of self self-defence not having been raised by the accused during the course of trial, the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, but this Court is unable to subscribe to the said view, as it has consistently been held that a plea of self-defence defence even if not taken in the statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross-examination, cross examination, still the same can be taken into account when the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence clearly show that that the injuries have been caused in self self-defence.
It, needs to be mentioned that accused Gurcharan Singh Singh, in any case, in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question though he also admitted that otherwise the property had been purchased by Jaswant Singh (complainant) from one Balwant Singh. He further pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible possession possessio of the property.
29. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, in 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 556 Kashi Ram Vs. State of M.P., M.P. while considering the right of an accused to raise plea of self-defence self defence held as under:
"24. The High Court was also not right in cr criticising and discarding availability of plea of self-defence self defence to the accused persons on the ground that the plea was not specifically taken by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 22 ) and because the accused Prabhu di did not enter in the witness box. Though Section Sectio 105 of the Evidence Act enacts a rule regarding burden of proof but it does not follow therefrom that the plea of private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall not be available to be considered considered though made out from the evidence available in the case.
case. A plea of self self-defence can be taken by introducing such plea in the cross cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Procedure Code, 1973 or by adducing defence evidence. And, even if the plea is not introduced in any one of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of submissions by relying on the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case as held eld by this Court in Vijayee Singh's case (supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person has chosen to abstain abstain from the witness box box."
(emphasis supplied)
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 333 Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra vs. State of West Bengal discussed the law regarding 'self-defence' defence' in detail touching all the relevant aspects. The broad principles of self-defence self defence as may be culled out from the same are stated herein-under:
under:
(1) It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self-defence - If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea - In a given case the Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is avail available to be considered from the material on record.VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 23 ) (2) Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of establishing the plea of self defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by self-defence showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and AIR 1979 Supreme Court 391 relied.
(3) An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. (4) Accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. (5) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence.
31. The facts of the case do suggest that the accused accused, immediately upon being threatened of dispossession, dispossession caused injuries to protect their possession, but despite the fact that a lesser number of injuries could have protected their possession, they proceeded on to inflict a large number of injuries to the unarmed complainant and deceased and as such, it can safely be held that all of them formed a common intention at the sp spur of the moment to inflict a large number of injuries while having a knowledge that such large number of injuries could even cause death. Consequently, even if the injuries specifically attributed to two of the appellants namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi may not be held to fatal injuries, but both of them would be vicariously liable for the injuries caused collectively by all the accused and the resultant death. However, having regard to the fact that it is a case of injuries caused in self-defence, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 24 ) the accused thus cannot be held liable for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998 SCC(Criminal) 248, 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case where accused persons assaulted the deceased deceased in exercise of their right of private defence of their property and had caused his death, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and convicted him for offence punishable under Section 304 Part Part-II IPC, while observing that the accused had exceeded his right of self defence by causing death. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein-under:
herein under:
"1. For causing the death of Balkar Singh, Jarnail Singh, the appellant before us. Modan Singh and Teja Singh were tried for and convicted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Teja Singh but upheld the convictions of the appellant and Mohan Singh. Aggrieved thereby, only the appellate has filed this appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court has recorded a categorical finding that the plot of land on which the incident took place was in exclusive possession of the accused persons and that on tthe fateful day the deceased along with his brother Avtar Singh (PW (PW-1), father Ajaib Singh (now dead) and one Kulwinder Singh had gone to that plot and started ploughing it with a tractor. The High Court held that it is at that time that the accused persons appeared there and assaulted Balkar Singh with the weapons, they were carrying. In the context of the above findings with which we are in complete agreement there cannot be any manner of doubt that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in exercise of their right of private defence of their property in which the deceased and other members of his family had criminally trespassed. However, their such right, though exercised in good faith and without premeditation, did not extend to death as the offence ccommitted by the deceased did not attract Section Sectio 103 Indian Penal Code Considering this aspect of the matter and the nature of weapons used and the number of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 25 ) injuries inflicted, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception Exception 2 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code.
3. For the foregoing discussion we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section 304(Part II), Indian Penal Code. For the conviction so recorded we sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appeal sentence is, thus, disposed of."
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the case in hand would at best attract ct an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
33. Consequently, both the appeals i.e. CRA-D D-63-DB-2005 and CRA-D-90- DB-2005 filed on behalf of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi respectively, are partly accepted to the extent that their conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is set aside, but they are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with 34 IPC. Since it is a case where accused had acted in self-defence, defence, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the nature of injur injuries and the nature of weapons used and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than two decades back, in our opinion a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years would be ends of justice. It is so ordered. The fine as imposed by the trial trial Court shall, however, remain unaltered.
VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M);
(O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 2005 (O&M) ( 26 )
34. For the reasons recorded above, criminal revision i.e. CRR-995-2005 filed on behalf of the complainant/injured seeking enhancement of sentence in respect of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
35. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance.
(GURVINDER GURVINDER SINGH GILL GILL) JUDGE 31.01.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document