Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malook Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : January 20, 2010
Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001
Malook Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
Present : Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents.
Crl. Appeal No.282-DB of 2001
Sharanjit Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
Present : Mr. A.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents.
Crl. Rev. No.920 of 2001
Sukhwinder Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Malook Singh and others ...Respondents
Present : Mr. Anmol Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M/s Vinod Ghai and A.P.S.Randhawa, Advocates,
for the respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 2
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of aforesaid criminal appeals, arising out of judgment dated 24.3.2001, convicting the accused-appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.216-DB of 2001 and 282-DB of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC. Vide separate order of even date, the accused-appellants were sentenced for varying terms including imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for an offence punishable under Section 302 and 149 IPC. Accused-appellant Kuldip Singh was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for inflicting simple injuries to Mohinder Singh, whereas all other accused-appellants convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 149 IPC as well. The complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.920 of 2001 seeking enhancement in the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.
One Sukhdev Singh s/o Gulzar Singh made a statement before the Police on 29.6.1998 pointing out that there is party faction on account of Panchayat election in their village Kallowal (for short 'village'). On 2.6.1998, Paramjit Singh S/o Malook Singh (now appellant) openly fired in the air with 315 bore gun of his brother Pal Singh. A case has been registered in Police Station Lopoke and both the parties were challaned for an offence under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. The case was fixed in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala. Both the parties have come to the Court on their respective vehicles. The case was adjourned to 13.7.1998 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala at about 11.00 AM. He went to Tehsil compound for his personal work. Paramjit Singh went to the village alongwith his other fellows on his tractor-trolley. After some time, the complainant alongwith Avtar Singh S/o Bhajan Singh, Kunan singh S/o Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 3 Harnam Singh, Mohinder Singh S/o Gulzar Singh, Baldev Singh S/o Lakha Singh left for their village in a maruti car, driven by Mahain Singh. At about 11.30 AM, when their car reached half kilometer ahead of village Issapur towards village Chogwan side, Paramjit Singh was seen blocking the passage with tractor-trolley. Car was stopped and then all the accused present in Court came down from the said tractor trolley. Accused Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh, Ranjit Singh armed with kirpan, accused Saranjit Singh and Satnam Singh armed with datar, accused Kuldip Singh armed with gandassi and accused Malook Singh came down of their tractor-trolley while raising lalkaras. On seeing them, complainant asked Mahain Singh, driver of the car, to take the same back, but while taking the car back, it got stuck in a pit and stopped. Accused Paramjit Singh and others came near their car. As the complainant party was empty handed, they ran out of the car towards village Issapur. Paramjit Singh accused raised lalkara to catch hold of Avtar Singh, as he is root cause of the dispute. The accused party ran towards Avtar Singh. Accused Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh and Ranjit Singh gave kirpan blows on the person of Avtar Singh, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. After that accused Saranjit Singh and Satnam Singh gave datar blows on the back of the neck of Avtar Singh. Kuldip Singh also gave 5/6 blows with his gandassi. Malook Singh also gave kirpan blows on the person of Avtar Singh. Brother of the complainant, Mohinder Singh made hue and cry not to kill Avtar Singh and came forward to save Avtar Singh, when Kuldip Singh gave three gandassi blows on the person of Mohinder Singh. Thereafter, all the accused ran away towards village Othian on their tractor trolley, while raising lalkaras. The complainant and Baldev Singh went to see Avtar Singh, but he had succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of such statement (Ex.PA) at about Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 4 12.30 PM, an FIR (Ex.PW3/E) was recorded at 1.30 PM. The inquest report is Ex.PF with hour of discovery of dead body at 12.30 PM. Baldev Singh and Kunan Singh are the persons, who identified the dead body. The injuries noticed in column No.10 of the inquest report are: (i) three injuries of sharp edged weapon, left back side in the head (ii) four marks of injuries on neck; mark of injury on right ear; two marks of wound on right front side of leg; two parks of wound on left buttock; mark of wound on left leg back side and left ankle and remaining injuries according to injury statement. The special report was sent to the Magistrate at Ajnala and the same was received by the said Magistrate at 6.50 PM on the date of occurrence.
Initially in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the name of Kuldip Singh was put in column No.2. However, on the basis of statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW-1) in the Court on 26.2.1999, Kuldip Singh was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh has appeared as PW3 and Dr. Ashok Kumar as PW-1, who has given medico legal report in respect of Mohinder Singh, when examined at 5.15 PM on 29.6.1998 at Civil Hospital, Ajnala. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai appeared as PW-2, who has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Avtar Singh on 30.6.1998 at 9.00 AM. The injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh are reported to be simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. The Doctor has not ruled out the possibility of these injuries being self-suffered. The Doctor has found 21 injuries on the person of Avtar Singh. Out of which, injury Nos.1 to 3 were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All other injuries i.e. injury Nos.4 to 21 are reported to be abrasions on different part of the body such as right side of forehead, right side of face, bridge of nose, right ear pinna, back of right upper arm I its upper one third, back of right elbow, front of right shoulder, below nip of Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 5 neck, right side of neck, below nip of neck from posterior hair line, above enterier superior aliac spine, calf of right leg, middle of front of right leg and deresum of left foot.
Sukhdev Singh (PW-3), on whose statement the FIR was lodged, and Mohinder Singh (PW-4) injured, are real brothers. The next material witness is SI Dharampal (PW-8). The said witness has proved rough site plan Ex.PY. As per the said plan point A is the place, where dead body of Avtar Singh was lying, point B is the place from where blood stained earth was picked up, point C is the place from which blood stained parna of Avtar Singh was picked up, point D is the place, where Mohinder Singh sustained injuries, point E is the place, where Maruti car was parked. Point A is 15 karams from point E. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the statement of Balkar Singh (DW-6), resident of village Issapur. He has, inter alia, deposed that it was about 11.00/12.00 noon time, when he saw tractor trolley parked on the road. He also saw one car coming from the side of Ajnala. One person alighted from the car and started altercating with the driver of the tractor trolley. The person, who was altercating with the driver of the tractor, was trying to climb on the tractor trolley alongwith a kirpan in his hand and one person immediately came from the fields and he was having gandassi in his hand. He attacked with gandassi to the person, who was trying to climb tractor trolley. The person, who was trying to climb tractor trolley, got his leg struck with the chain of the trolley and was dragged to a distance of few feet. Thereafter, his leg got extracted from the chain of the tractor trolley and tractor trolley went away. When he went to the place of occurrence, he found that the person who tried to climb the trolley was lying dead. He has further deposed that the car was standing at Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 6 the place, where it was initially stopped and that he only saw one person outside the car and did not find any other person there.
With the said evidence, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to support the genesis of its story and the manner of occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also admitted that all the accused except Ranjit Singh and Kuldip Singh were facing proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the site plan (Ex.PY) totally negates the prosecution story, as the place of occurrence, including the place where Mohinder Singh and Avtar Singh are reported to be standing are reflected to be in between the car and tractor trolley and towards Village Chogawan side. Such site plan produced by the Investigating Officer completely knocks down the prosecution case, as it is the case of the prosecution that Avtar Singh started running from the car towards Ajnala. Since the site plan contradicts the prosecution case, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also argued that injury Nos.4 to 21 are abrasions, which can be caused by the process of dragging, as per the case set up by the defence. After three blows on the head of Avtar Singh, he would be immobilized and, therefore, it is highly improbable that 18 abrasions injuries could be inflicted upon him, when he was motionless target. It is contended that the prosecution has not explained all the injuries except seven, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is further contended that delay in sending special report to a Judicial Magistrate, who is residing next to the police station, gives enough Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 7 opportunity to the police officials to introduce the witnesses and, thus, the prosecution story is unbelievable. The injuries said to be inflicted by blunt side of weapons, are not corroborated by medical evidence, as abrasions would not be caused by blunt side of weapons, as none of the injuries has lacerated wound.
Mr. Ghai, learned counsel representing the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.216-DB of 2001, has vehemently argued that the driver of the car has not been examined, so is Baldev Singh and Kunan Singh, witnesses of the inquest report. It is argued that Sukhdev Singh was not the person at the place of occurrence for the reason that he has not party to proceedings under Section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. and sitting of six persons in a maruti car is impossible. Sukhdev Singh is the main person, as he says that there is a party faction and he being Sarpanch, the target would be Sukhdev Singh and not Avtar Singh, as alleged in the complaint Ex.PA. Sukhdev Singh is not the signatory to the inquest report and is not shown in the site plan Ex.PY. In respect of Mohinder Singh, it is argued that the abrasions on his person can be self-inflicted, as deposed by the Doctor and are alleged by push. Mohinder Singh is not part of the inquest proceedings. Therefore, it is a case where the case has been built up by the prosecution after finding out the injuries received by the deceased and planting them on the accused.
On the other hand, Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the prosecution has vehemently argued that the appellants have set up a case of self-defence, which is evident from the statement of Paramjit Singh recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the statement of Balkar Singh (DW-
6). It is contended that in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving the existing circumstances to bring the case within Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 8 any of the exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, is on the accused. From the cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses and statement of accused Paramjit Singh, it is apparent that the tractor trolley was parked in the middle of the road. As per Paramjit Singh, the same was stopped on road, so as to enable him to ease himself and his children continued to sit in the tractor trolley. The stand of the accused was also that one Ram Narain was driving the tractor trolley on the aforesaid date. The appellants have not produced either the alleged driver or any of the family members alleged to be with Paramjit Singh on the date of occurrence. Therefore, it is contended that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proof in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also argued that inquest report may be relevant in the cases of circumstantial evidence, but not in the cases of eye-witness account. It is also argued that the site plan is not substantive evidence, as the same is prepared on the information given and is not a substitute of occular evidence.
The statement of Paramjit Singh, accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, is relevant to find out the case set up in defence, which reads as under :
"In fact on the day of occurrence, I and my children were sitting in trolley and Ram Narain Baiya was driving the tractor. After crossing Issapur, I got stopped the tractor trolley and went to adjoining field to ease myself. I was having a gandassi with me. At that time, Mohinder Singh and Avtar Singh came from the side of Ajnala in a car driven by a driver. The car was stopped near tractor trolley. Avtar Singh was having a kirpan. Avtar Singh abused the driver as to why he has stopped the tractor. Ram Narain also abused in return. Then Avtar Singh tried to assault Ram Narain and Ram Narain started moving the tractor towards Chogawan. Avtar Singh raised lalkara and tried to climb the moving trolley with a naked kirpan in his Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 9 hand. I cam running and caused injuries to Avtar Singh to defend Ram Narain and the children. Foot of Avtar Singh struck in hind chain of trolley and he was dragged to some distance. Then his foot get off the chain. When Mohinder Singh came forwards, I also gave him a push. Police made a false case against me. My co-accused were not present at the spot."
A reading of the evidence on record would show that Ranjit Singh S/o Malook Singh and Kuldip Singh are not parties in proceedings for the offences under Sections 107 and 151 IPC. Ranjit Singh is alleged to be armed with kirpan and attributed kirpan blow on the head of Avtar Singh alongwith Paramjit Singh and Pal Singh. Kuldip Singh is attributed gandassi blows from reverse side on the right ear, right leg, knee of left leg and left ankle. Malook Singh is attributed two kirpan blows from blunt side to Avtar Singh on his buttock.
Before the learned trial Court, accused Malook Singh, Paramjit Singh, Ranjit Singh and Pal Singh were represented by Mr. R.M.Zakhmi, Advocate, who has conducted separate cross-examinations than Shri A.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate, who represented the other three accused. As per the suggestions given in the cross-examinations, the presence of Mohinder Singh is not disputed, when it is suggested to Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) in the cross-examination by Shri Randhawa. Still further, suggestion to Mohinder Singh (PW-4), was that he was given a push by Paramjit Singh. Accused Paramjit Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that Mohinder Singh and Avtar Singh came from the side of Ajnala in a car driven by a driver. Avtar Singh was alleged to be armed with kirpan. He has stated that when Mohinder Singh came forward, he has given him push. Therefore, the presence of Mohinder Singh at the time of Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 10 occurrence is beyond any pale of shadow. Mohinder Singh appearing as PW-4 has supported the prosecution case in its entirety.
The site plan is document based upon information received by the Investigating Officer. Since, the presence of Mohinder Singh is not disputed and he has supported the version given by Sukhdev Singh in FIR and in evidence, it is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case on the basis of site plan alone. The eye-witness account in the present case is natural, probable and without any material contradiction, which may doubt the correctness of the prosecution case. Therefore, on the basis of site plan alone, the occular evidence cannot be brushed aside.
Malook Singh, aged about 76 years, is attributed injuries on the buttock of deceased Avtar Singh. However, the medical evidence does not corroborate such injuries attributed to him by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, though the presence of Malook Singh at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed, but the injuries said to be inflicted by such a aged person, in the presence of his sons, seems to be highly improbable.
Ranjit Singh S/o Malook Singh was not an accused in the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 IPC. Therefore, he was not required to attend the proceedings at Ajnala on the date of occurrence. Such fact may not be by itself sufficient to doubt his presence at the time of occurrence. The injuries attributed to Ranjit Singh are by kirpan and on the head of deceased Avtar Singh. On head, the injuries are also attributed to accused Paramjit Singh and Pal Singh. It seems to be highly improbable that three injuries on the left back side of head would be caused by three different persons, when the site of injuries is at a distance of 1 cm to each other. Therefore, the presence of Ranjit Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful and he is, thus, entitled to benefit of doubt.
Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 11
Similarly, Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) has deposed that Sharanjit Singh and Satnam Singh gave datar blow each from the reverse side on the back of neck of deceased Avtar Singh. The said statement is corroborated by Mohinder Singh (PW-4) and also the medical evidence. The argument that reverse side of datar will not cause abrasions is not tenable, as the nature and extent of injury is dependent upon many factors such as force and angle of blow of weapon and manner of its use.
We do not find any substance in the argument that Sukhdev Singh is the leader of other faction, therefore, there was no motive with the appellants to attack Avtar Singh. Though, Sukhdev Singh may be Sarpanch, but still deceased Avtar Singh could be the brain or the muscle behind him and that could be the motive to attack upon Avtar Singh on the date of occurrence. In any case, motive in cases of ocular testimonies is not of greater relevance. It is not sufficient to discard the prosecution story based on consistent eye-witness account.
Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) has deposed that Kuldip Singh has attributed gandassi blow from reverse side on the right ear, right leg, left leg, left knee and left ankle of the person of Avtar Singh and on the left arm of Mohinder Singh. Such is the statement of Mohinder Singh (Pw-4). The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that with blunt side of gandassi, lacerated wound would be caused, is in the realm of conjectures. The extent of force and the angle of blow will determine the nature of injuries. Therefore, from the reverse side of gandassi, abrasions can be caused. As a matter of fact, pictorial diagram of the body of deceased Avtar Singh corroborates the prosecution case. After fatal blow on the head of deceased, Sharanjit Singh and Satnam Singh have given blow on the back side of neck of deceased Avtar Singh, whereas the abrasions on the right Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 12 side can be said to be result of fall and dragging after Avtar Singh fell down and in the process of saving himself before his death. The injuries on the left side i.e. left leg, left knee and left ankle are the one caused by Kuldip Singh. The assailants have given blows, which is evident from the injuries on the right side of Avtar Singh. Abrasions on the right side of the body of the deceased can be result of falling of the deceased on the right side after he was given blow on the left side of his head and on the back of neck. Similarly, injury on the left arm of Mohinder Singh, is also attributed to Kuldip Singh. Therefore, the presence of Kuldip Singh and the injuries at his instance, are proved to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kuldip Singh, Constable with Punjab Police, appellant in Crl. Appeal No.282-DB of 2001, was not initially charged in the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He has set up a plea of alibi that on the date of occurrence, he got a paralytic attack and was admitted in the hospital at Amritsar. The said aspect i.e. line of cross-examination on behalf of Kuldip Singh and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to such effect, when he has said to the following effect :
"I am innocent. I came on leave. On 29.6.1998, I and Kartar Singh, Lamberdar left our village at 8.30 AM and came to Electricity Board Office at Khasa and remained there till 11.30 AM. Thereafter, I left for Amritsar. At Chheharta, I left shooting pain and fell down unconscious. Later, I came to know that I had suffered brain haemorrhage. I came to know that initially I was taken to Dr. Swaran Singh of Janta Hospital, Chheharta. Later, I was taken to hospital at Amritsar, where I remained under treatment for a very long time. I was falsely involved due to party faction in the village. During investigation, I have been found innocent by the police."
With respect to plea of alibi raised by Kuldip Singh, it may be mentioned that Dr. Swaran Singh (DW-2) has deposed that he has treated Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 13 Kuldip Singh at Chheharta about 2 ½ years ago. He has not given the date of treatment of Kuldip Singh and nor produced any entry in the register regarding the treatment of patients. Therefore, the treatment of Kuldip Singh on the date of occurrence by Dr. Swaran Singh is not proved. The statements of other defence witnesses i.e. Gurjit Singh (DW-3), C. Prabhjit Singh (DW-4) and Kulwant Singh, Conductor (DW-5), does not inspire confidence. Such witnesses have tried to prove that Kuldip Singh got an attack at Chheharta. Such oral statements of the aforesaid witnesses are not corroborated by the statement of Dr. Swaran Singh (DW-2), as he has not produced his record, though the initial treatment was purportedly given by him, as deposed by all the defence witnesses.
Kuldip Singh has relied upon Ex.D8, his treatment from Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Charitable Trust Hospital. In the admission and the discharge record, the date of admission is mentioned as 30.6.1998 at 12.10 AM and discharge on 23.8.1998 at 11.30 AM. Even the treatment is from 30.6.1998 itself. However, in the history sheet, the date of admission is interpolated. It appears that the words 30.6.1998 have been over written with the words 29.6.1998. Therefore, from the record produced by Kuldip Singh, it is apparent that he was admitted in the hospital on 30.6.1998 and not on 29.6.1998, as sought to be proved by him. Therefore, the plea of alibi raised by Kuldip Singh is found to be unsustainable.
In view of the discussion above, out of seven accused, presence of Ranjit Singh alone is doubtful. Whereas, joining of Malook Singh with the common intention to cause harm to the other faction seems to be improbable. Role of Malook Singh can be that of a spectator alone and a by-stander. But the other five accused formed an unlawful assembly, while returning to the village after attending the hearing of the security Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 14 proceedings. The appellants are proved to be possessed of weapons. The tractor trolley was stopped in the middle of the road. The defence version that the tractor trolley was driven by Ram Narain and Paramjit Singh was accompanied by his children was not proved. Therefore, the prosecution case that the accused namely Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Kuldip Singh had the common object to commit an offence within the meaning of Section 141 of the IPC, cannot be said to be not proved. There are two special ingredients for a proof of an offence under Section 149 IPC; (i) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly; and (ii) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
In Munna Chanda Vs. State of Assam (2006) 3 SCC 752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the following effect :
"10. The concept of common object, it is well known, is different from common intention. It is true that so far as common object is concerned no prior concert is required. Common object can be formed on the spur of the moment. Course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly, however, is a relevant factor. At what point of time the common object of the unlawful assembly was formed would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
In Masalti Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the following effect :
"17. ...... The crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 15 merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly"
In Hori Lal and another Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 79, the Hon'ble Court has held to the following effect :
"23. Common object would mean the purpose or design shared by all the members of such assembly. It may be formed at any stage.
24. Whether in a given case the accused persons shared common object or not, must be ascertained from the acts and conduct of the accused persons. The surrounding circumstances are also relevant and may be taken into consideration in arriving at a conclusion in this behalf.
25. It is in two parts. The first part would be attracted when the offence is committed in furtherance of the common object. The offence, even if is not committed in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, Section 149 IPC may still be attracted."
Keeping in view the principles, culled down in the aforesaid judgments, we find that apart from Paramjit Singh, his brother Pal Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Kuldip Singh have placed active role in inflicting injuries upon deceased Avtar Singh, whereas Kuldip singh has caused injuries to the injured Mohinder Singh as well. The participation of such persons shows that such injuries were caused in furtherance of common objectives as interpreted in the aforesaid judgments.
Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.282-DB of 2001 is dismissed. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 is allowed partly by granting benefit of doubt to Malook Singh and Ranjit Singh, absolving them of all the charges leveled against them by the prosecution. The conviction for an offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC Crl. Appeal No.216-DB of 2001 16 is maintained against Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Kuldip Singh.
Now coming to the Criminal Revision No.920 of 2001, the petitioner has sought enhancement of punishment to that of death and whole of the fine on its recovery be paid to the complainant as compensation. We have considered the entire evidence to return a finding of conviction of Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Kuldip Singh, as it has been found that such appellants have caused the death of Avtar Singh. Since the appellants have been found responsible for causing death of Avtar Singh, therefore, while accepting the criminal revision, the appellants namely Paramjit Singh, Pal Singh, Sharanjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Kuldip Singh, are directed to deposit additional fine of Rs.40,000/- each with the trial Court within a period of three months from today and payable to the legal heirs of deceased Avtar Singh in equal shares. In the event of default of fine, the appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
With the aforesaid observations, Criminal Appeal Nos.216-DB of 2001 and 282-DB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.920 of 2001 are disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
January 20, 2010 (JASWANT SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE