Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Inderpal, Etc on 8 January, 2026
CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -1
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-306-DBA-2004
Date of Reserve:07.11.2025
Date of Decision: 08.01.2026
State of Punjab ...Appellant
Vs.
Inder Pal and Others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Present: Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Proceedings qua respondent No.1-Inder Pal
stands abated v.o.d 26.10.2017.
Mr. B.S Jaswal, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2003, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the charge.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Inder Kumar son of Suraj Nath and the same has been reproduced below:-
"Stated that I am resident of village Mehapur (Bihar) and do as Masonry work. Sunesh Kumar son of Lakhan Ram, Kamlesh son of Banesar and Janardhan son of Kaletar Ram, caste Ravidass residents of Mehapur(Bihar) and Pardeep Kumar who is also resident of Bihar and I am not aware about his full address we work as a masson and 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -2 we have been residing in village Kot Budha for the last 2 and half years. Inderpal son of Dhanpat Rai caste Khatri resident of village Kot Budha also work with us as a masson and Pardeep Kumar used to keep his earning money with Inder Pal. About 2/3 days earlier he used to go to Inderpal to take his money from Inder pal and Inder Pal used to put him of. Pardeep Kumar used to say that he has to go to his village in Bihar. Today at about 8 A.M. Inder Pal, Binder Pal and Baljit Kumar sons of Dhanpat Rai caste Khatri residents of village Kot Budha came to us and they took Pardeep Kumar with them on the pretext to settle the account. Pardeep Kumar did not return home till evening then I, Sunesh Kumar and Janardhan went to the village in order to search of him. We came to know secretly that Inder Pal, Binder Pal and Baljit Kumar have killed Pardeep Kumar after administering him some poisoning substance and they have kept the dead body of Pardeep in the house of Inder Pal. We took Kulwant singh, Balbir singh sons of Rattan Singh,Hardev singh and Jassa singh sons of Kulwant singh Jats of the village Kot Budha and went to the house of Inder Pal.It would be 9 P.M and we noticed in the light of Torch that Inder Pal, Binder Pal and Baljit Kumar all the three were tieing the dead body of Pardeep Kumar in plastic Palli near their room of Turiwala (wheat chalf fodder). On seeing us they all ran away from there. The motive is that Pardeep Kumar used to keep his earning money with Inder Pal. On demanding back his money. Inder Pal, Binder Pal and Baljit singh have killed Pardeep Kumar after administering him some poisoning substance. After leaving Sunesh and Janardhan at the spot to guard the dead body. I alongwith Kulwant singh son of Rattan singh, Jat, r/o Kot Budha was going to lodge the report at the police station that you have met. Action be taken. I have heard the 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -3 statement which is correct". Attested:- Sd/Hardeep Singh, ASI".
3. After the registration of the formal FIR Ex.PH/3, ASI Hardeep Singh along with the complainant and other police officials visited the place of incident and the dead body was found lying in the Verandah of the house, wrapped in a plastic sheet and Sunesh and Janardhan were found near the dead body. The inquest report was prepared and the post mortem was got conducted by moving an application Ex.PA. Even, the plastic sheet was taken into possession by Inspector Swaran Singh and the usual investigation was conducted at the spot. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented only against Inderpal Singh, respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 and 3 were kept in column No.2. However, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved and respondents No.2 and 3 were also ordered to be summoned to face trial along with Inderpal, respondent No.1.
4. After the summoning of respondents No.2 and 3, charge was again framed under Section 302 IPC against the respondents and the charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded that they had been falsely involved and claimed to be tried by the Trial Court.
5. To prove the charge against the respondents, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pardeep Kumar on 20.05.2000 and proved the copy of the post mortem report as Ex.PC. On examination of dead body, he found as under:-
"Length of the body was 5-5". It was dead body of a young male of moderate built and nourishment. Eyes closed, mouth semi-open. Rigor mortis and post mortem staining were 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -4 present. He was wearing kameej. Dabbidar, banayan white, pant coca cola, underwear light green.
On examination of thorax-walls, ribs, cartilages. pleurae, larynx, and tracea, right and left lungs, heart and large vessels were N.A.D. But pleurae, larynx, tachea, right and left lungs were congested.
In abdomen walls, peritoneum, large intestine, bladder and organs of generation were NAD. Mouth and pharynx and oesophagus contained forth. Materials sent to Chemical Examiner, Patiala, were in Jar No.1 containing stomach and small intestines. Jar No.2 containing pieces of liver, spleen and kidneys. Jar No.3 sample of blood, Jard No.4 preservative".
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not find any injury or struggle marks on the dead body. He admitted that organophosphorous compound was highly pungent and was a bitter type of poison. Rigor mortis on the dead body had not yet completely disappeared and according to him the rigors mortis completely disappears from the dead body after 36 hours of death. Even, as per the report Ex.PD of Chemical Examiner, organophosphorous group of insecticide was detected in the viscera. The statements of PW-2 HC Harjinder Singh, PW-3 LC Gurvail Singh and PW-4 Constable Prabhdeep Singh were formal in nature. The prosecution further examined PW-5 Inder Kumar/complainant son of Suraj Nath, who reiterated his version as mentioned in the FIR Ex.PH/3. The prosecution further examined PW-6 Kulwant Singh, who supported the case of the complainant Inder Kumar PW-5. The prosecution further examined PW-7 Rishi Ram Draftsman, who had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PK. Further, ASI Hardip Singh was examined as PW-8, who had initially recorded the statement Ex.PH/1 and the formal FIR Ex.PH/3 was registered by SI Mohan Singh. Swaran Singh appeared as PW-9, who was 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -5 posted as SHO of the police station on the date of occurrence and he remained the I.O of the present case and had effected recoveries initially.
6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of Inderpal, respondent No.1 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he raised the following defence in his statement:-
"I am innocent. Pardeep Kumar deceased was a migrately labourer. He had no family with him. For his residence, I had given him a shed in the precints of my building where he used to reside. For the last two years, he had not visited his native land, nor, did many one came to him. He was perhaps a bachelor, whatever, he used to earn, he used to spend. He did not deposit his earnings with him, nor, there was any dispute between me and the deceased for the return of the same. He was depressed for the last few days and on the morning of 10.5.2000, we found him lying dead in his shed. I informed the respectables and the police, However, at the instance of Kulwant, the police lodged false FIR and implicated me and my brothers".
7. Similar statements were made by respondents No.2 and 3.
8. In their defence, the respondents examined Balkar Singh as DW-1, who stated that all the three respondents were brothers and were residing separately from each other along with their families. Binderpal and Baljit Kumar were putting up in separate houses at a distance of about two acres from the house of Inder Pal. Even, Binderpal was running a shop in village, Baljit Kumar was a cultivator and Inderpal used to work as a contractor for construction of the houses. The respondents further examined Guravtar Singh as DW-2, who also supported the statement of DW-1 Balkar Singh. Pargat Singh @ Polo was examined as DW-3, who stated that all the three respondents 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -6 were residing separately along with their respective families. There was no other person besides him, who was also known as "Polo". Pardeep Kumar, deceased had never remained in his house as a tenant or even otherwise. Even, no other person from Bihar ever stayed in his house. The respondents further examined HC Sukhwinder Singh as DW-4, who had brought the original copy of FIR No.35, dated 20.03.2001, under Sections 307,323,324,148,149 and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Patti. He stated that Kulwant Singh son of Rattan Singh, Hardev Singh son of Bhagwant Singh and others were challaned in the said case.
9. Learned State counsel vehemently argued that the Trial Court had wrongly ignored the evidence led by the prosecution, while passing the impugned order. In fact, PW-5 Inder Kumar had categorically deposed that Pardeep Kumar was killed by the respondents and his dead body was kept in a plastic sheet by them. Even, the said witness had explained the role of each of the accused and it was clear that all the accused had wrapped the dead body in a plastic sheet and wanted to dispose of the same. Even, as per the medical opinion, organophosphorous compound was found in the viscera of the deceased and it was a case of unnatural death. Even, the poison was forcibly administered to the deceased by the respondents and they had been wrongly acquitted. Apart from that, there was motive also on the part of the respondents to commit the crime. Pardeep Kumar, since deceased used to keep his entire earning with Inderpal, respondent No.1 and on demand, Pardeep Kumar was killed by the respondents, who were real brothers. Thus, the involvement of the respondents stood proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 :::
CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -7
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents referred to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that the respondents have been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their able assistance.
12. In order to substantiate the charge against the respondents, the prosecution heavily relied upon the testimonies of two witnesses i.e. PW-5 Inder Kumar and PW-6 Kulwant Singh. It was alleged that Pardeep Kumar, since deceased was last seen in the company of the respondents and while the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence, all the three brothers were found wrapping the dead body in a plastic sheet. Thus, on the strength of the same, it could be easily inferred that they had committed the offence, whereas, on the other hand, the respondents had raised the categoric defence that Pardeep Kumar, since deceased was a migrant labourer and no person was residing with him. He was provided a shed in a building by respondent No.1, where he was residing for the last two years. Whatever he used to earn, he used to spend on himself and had never deposited the earnings with any of the accused. He was depressed for the last few years and on 19.05.2000, he was found dead in his shed and Inderpal, accused had informed the police in this regard. After scrutiny of prosecution as well as defence evidence, the Trial Court found the defence version to be more probable and believable and we find no reasons to differ with the same. The prosecution had alleged that Pardeep Kumar, deceased and others were living in the house of Polo, however, Pargat Singh @ Polo was examined as DW-3, who categorically deposed that there was no other 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -8 person of the name of "Polo" besides him, in the village and Pardeep Kumar, deceased as well as other witnesses never stayed in his house. Still further, he categorically denied that Inder Kumar PW-5 also stayed in his house. Still further, Kulwant Singh PW-6 could not produce any evidence to show that Pardeep Kumar, since deceased and other witnesses were living in the house of "Polo". Still further, PW-5 Inder Kumar and other witnesses also could not explain the source, from which they had received the information regarding the incident. Inder Kumar PW-5 was searchingly cross examined by the defence and he admitted that certain children had told him that Pardeep Kumar had been killed by administering poison forcibly, but he did not enquire about the names of those children. Even, surprisingly, the children had disclosed to him that the dead body of Pardeep Kumar was lying in the house of respondent No.1. It is highly unbelievable that after committing the murder, the respondents had kept the dead body openly and even, the children of the village could had occasion to see the same. Apart from that, even the medical evidence of the present case does not suggest that it is a case of homicidal death. The prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pardeep Kumar. As per him, on receipt of Chemical Examiner Report EX.PD, he had declared that the cause of death in the present case was an organophosphorous compound of insecticide. Still further, he did not find any injury or struggle marks on the dead body. He further admitted that organophosphorous compound was highly pungent and was a bitter type of poison. Thus, it is apparent from the medical evidence also that probably Pardeep Kumar had committed the suicide by consuming some poisonous pesticide, which makes the defence version more probable. Apart from that, we 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -9 also agree with the findings recorded by the Trial Court, wherein, it has been observed that the prosecution could not prove the motive against the respondents to commit the crime. It has been alleged that Pardeep Kumar used to keep all his earnings with Inder Pal, respondent No.1 for about one and half years, prior to his death. When Pardeep Kumar wanted to go to his home in Bihar about 2/3 days prior to the occurrence, he demanded his money back from respondent No.1, however, respondent No.1 has attacked him. However, respondent No.1 refused to return the money and committed the murder with the help of his brothers. We find no reasons to disagree with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Apart from the simple statement of Inder Kumar PW-5 that Pardeep Kumar, since deceased used to keep his earnings with Inderpal, respondent No.1, there is no other evidence to substantiate the same. Even otherwise, such a weak motive cannot serve as a ground for committing such a henious offence and the version of the prosecution appears to be highly improbable. Even otherwise, we have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and find no reasons to deviate from the same.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as follows:-
"14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this court as expressed in Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR (Criminal) 35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 :::
CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -10
"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."
14. 15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 ::: CRA-D-306-DBA-2004 -11 cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."
15. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal fails and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
16. Case property, if any, be dealt with, and destroyed after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, in accordance with law.
17. The Trial Court record be sent back.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 08.01.2026 hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 11 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:58 :::