Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2018
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari, B.S. Walia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
Date of Decision:- August 31, 2018
Gurnam Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2. Criminal Appeal No.D-1201-DB of 2012
Ranbir Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
3. Criminal Appeal No.S-3603-SB of 2012
Satnam Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
4. Criminal Appeal No.D-37-DB of 2013
Malook Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
5. Criminal Appeal No.D-42-DB of 2013
Balwinder Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
1 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -2-
6. Criminal Appeal No.D-77-DB of 2013
Gurbhej Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
7. Criminal Appeal No.D-78-DB of 2013
Karaj Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
8. Criminal Appeal No.D-79-DB of 2013
Jaswant Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
9. Criminal Appeal No.D-80-DB of 2013
Joginder Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. WALIA
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in CRA-D-120-DB of 2013.
2 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -3-
Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate
for the appellants No.6, 9, 10 & 11 in
CRA-D-1201-DB of 2012.
Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the remaining appellant(s) (in CRA-
D-1201-DB of 2012, CRA-D-37-DB of 2013, CRA-D-77-DB
of 2013, CRA-D-78-DB of 2013, CRA-D-79-DB of 2013, and
CRA-D-80-DB of 2013).
None for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-3603-SB of 2012.
Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate
for the appellants (in CRA-D-42-DB of 2013).
Mr. H.S. Sullar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.
Per A.B. CHAUDHARI J.
1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid nine
criminal appeals. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken up from
CRA-D-120-DB of 2013.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions Case No.5 of
2008/2010 vide which the learned trial Court held all the appellants guilty of
the various offences and sentenced them, as described in a chart hereinafter,
these appeals have been filed by the appellants/convicts.
Facts
3. The prosecution case is that on 10.7.2007, complainant Anoop
Singh made a statement to the SHO Gurbachan Lal of Police Station Raja
Sansi informing that at about 3.45 PM, he along with Saroop Singh, Kewal
Singh, Gurpartap Singh, Baldev Singh and Amritpal Singh were proceeding
towards fields of Baldev Singh for bringing cattle fodder on rehri. When
3 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -4-
they reached near the drain, they found about 20-22 persons armed with
various weapons had concealed themselves around the drain in the bushes.
Out of them, accused Malook Singh raised a lalkara that the complainant
party be caught and taught a lesson for making mischief. On this Joginder
Singh gave a blow with sword on the person of complainant Anoop Singh
hitting him on the right side of his eye-brow above forehead. Accused
Dilbag Singh gave a second blow to him with sword which hit him on the
right side of the head. Accused Sahib Singh gave a third blow to him with a
Datar hitting the center of the head of complainant. Jaswant Singh gave an
iron rod blow on his shoulder, while Lakha Singh gave hockey blow on the
right side of his ankle and Chhinder Singh gave a blow with daang hitting
him on his shoulder. Anoop Singh raised an alarm. Randhir Singh @
Babbu and Sukhjinder Singh fired from their double barrel gun towards
Saroop Singh. Harbans Singh and Karnail Singh fired from their respective
double barrel guns at Kewal Singh. Baghel Singh also received many
injuries. Gurpartap Singh and Amritpal Singh were also inflicted injuries
and a large number of persons gathered on the scene. Gurpartap Singh had a
licensed double barrel gun with him but the same was snatched and taken
away by the accused persons. After the incident of assault as stated above,
some conveyance was arranged to shift the injured persons to the hospital
but Sarup Singh and Kewal Singh had expired. Their dead bodies were put
in hospital at Ajnala and injured persons were taken to Guru Nanak Dev
Hospital, Amritsar.
4. SI Gurbachan Lal along with other police officials, who were
present at Adda Rajasansi, received information about the admission of
4 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -5-
injured persons in the Hospital at Amritsar. He reached the hospital. In the
hospital, statement of Anoop Singh was recorded regarding the incident and
since the facts of the incident were disclosed, an FIR was registered and
thereafter a ruqa was sent through HC Balraj Singh for registration of
formal FIR. The investigation commenced during which site plan was
prepared, post mortem of dead bodies was conducted, parcels of blood
stained earth and empty cartridges were prepared and taken into police
possession. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. On 12.7.2007
accused Malook Singh was arrested and on his disclosure, rifle of .12 bore
was recovered which was in a broken condition. On 15.7.2007, accused
Dilbagh Singh was arrested from whom on discovery a kirpan was
recovered. On 21.7.2007 accused Jaspal Singh and Davinder Singh were
arrested and from their possession an iron rod and datar were recovered.
The police received x-ray reports of Gurpartap Singh, Baghel Singh and
Amritpal Singh and thereafter Sections 326, 325, 324 IPC etc. were added.
On 10.8.2007 accused Lakha Singh and Avtar Singh were arrested and
hockey and dattar were recovered by their recovery. Accused Jaswant
Singh, Karaj Singh and Nirmal Singh were arrested and weapons were also
recovered from their discovery. On 20.8.2007 accused Sukhjinder Singh was
arrested and from his possession rifle of .12 bore gun was recovered while a
kirpan was recovered from Jarnail Singh. On 07.9.2002 accused Balwinder
Singh alias Fauji was arrested and from whose datar was recovered. On
18.9.2007 accused Skattar Singh was arrested and thereafter the remaining
accused were arrested on different dates. Some more evidences were
collected by the prosecution and thereafter investigation was completed and
5 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -6-
challan against the accused persons was presented in the Court.
5. Continuing the investigation, the police had thereafter filed
three supplementary charge-sheets in the Court. By order dated 20.8.2008
all the challans were consolidated and clubbed for the purposes of holding
the trial. The charges against the accused were framed for various offences
under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 IPC read with Sections 27
and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. During trial, on an application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.2.2010 accused Jarnail Singh, Harbans
Singh, Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh were ordered to be summoned as
accused persons. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses.
Thereafter, the trial was completed and the trial Court held the accused
persons guilty of various offences. It will be appropriate to quote the chart
showing conviction and sentence of various accused persons, who have been
convicted as was prepared by the trial Court at the end of the judgment with
one more addition of a column as to the 'sentenced already undergone till
date:-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
1 Malook 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 years, 5
Singh IPC years month months
and 04
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 27.9.2013.
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
6 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -7-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
2 Dilbagh 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 3
Singh IPC years month Months
and 9 Days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 30.7.2013.
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
3 Sawinder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years 3
Singh IPC years month Months
and 25
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 30.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
7 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -8-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
days
4 Joginder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 3
Singh IPC years month Months
and 12
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 24.9.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
5 Jaspal 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 1
Singh IPC years month Month and
19 days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 25.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
6 Davinder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 1
Singh IPC years month Month and
8 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -9-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one 19 days
IPC Imprisonment year vide
Custody
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three Certificate
IPC months dated
25.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
7 Kabal 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 8
Singh IPC years month Months
and 26
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 24.9.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
8 Lakha 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years
Singh IPC years month and 23
days vide
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Custody
IPC Imprisonment year Certificate
dated
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three 25.7.2013
IPC months
9 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -10-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
9 Avtar 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 1
Singh IPC years month Month and
27 days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year custody
certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 19.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
10 Lal Singh 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one
IPC years month
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one
IPC Imprisonment year
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC months
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
10 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -11-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
11 Jaswant 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Year, 5
Singh IPC years month Months
and 27
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 24.9.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
12 Karaj 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Year, 1
Singh IPC years month Month and
11 Days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 24.5.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
11 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -12-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
days
13 Gurnam 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 4
Singh IPC years month Month and
18 Days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 27.9.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
14 Nirmal 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years, 4
Singh IPC years month Months
and 18
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 27.09.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
15 Sukhjinder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 7 Years, 6
Singh @ IPC years month Months
Sonu and 23
12 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -13-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 11.12.2017
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
16 Jarnail 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 1 Year, 6
Singh S/o IPC years month Months
Sher Singh and 12
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 25.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
17 Balwinder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 4 Years, 4
Singh IPC years month Months
and 11
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months
13 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -14-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three 24.9.2013
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
18 Sakattar 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 1 Year, 11
Singh IPC years month Months
and 10
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 19.7.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
19 Sukhchain 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 1 Year, 3
Singh IPC years month Months
and 6 Days
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 06.5.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
14 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -15-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
20 Harjinder 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 1 Year, 11
Singh IPC years month Months
and 27
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 06.02.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
21 Satnam 29-B R.I. Three 3000/- S.I. Three Sentence
Singh Arms years months already
suspended by
Act the trial Court
and absolute
by this Court
vide order
dated
28.2.2013.
22 Gurbhej 148 IPC R.I. Three years 1000/- S.I. one 10 Months
Singh month and 20
Days vide
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Custody
IPC Imprisonment year Certificate
dated
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three
24.5.2013
IPC months
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
15 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -16-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
23 Gursharan 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 1 Year, 4
Singh alias IPC years month Months
Sahib and 9 Days
Singh 302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 11.12.2013
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
24 Jarnail 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years 1
Singh S/o IPC years month Month and
Lal Singh 20 Days
302 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 20.08.2015
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
16 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -17-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
25 Harbans 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 2 Years 2
Singh IPC years month Months
and 18
302 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Days vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 20.08.2015
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
26 Ranjit 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 09 Months
Singh IPC years month and 27
days vide
302/149 Life 10,000/- S.I. one Custody
IPC Imprisonment year Certificate
dated
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three 11.11.2013
IPC months
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
27 Ranbir 148 R.I. Three 1000/- S.I. one 3 Years, 1
17 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -18-
Sr. Name of U/S Sentence Fine in ` In Sentence
No. the default of undergone
convicts payment
of fine
Singh IPC years month Month and
9 Days
302 Life 10,000/- S.I. one vide
IPC Imprisonment year Custody
Certificate
307/149 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three dated
IPC months 13.2.2017
326/149 R.I. Four years 3000/- S.I. three
IPC years
325/149 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one
IPC month
324/149 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one
IPC half years month
323/149 R.I. six months 500/- S.I.
IPC fifteen
days
Hence these appeals were filed in this Court.
Arguments
7. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the respective
appellants in the appeals made various submissions but we would like to
reproduce them together hereunder instead of recording them separately.
The counsel for the appellants made the following submissions :-
8. The incident is said to have taken place at 2.45 on 10.7.2007
while the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 11.7.2007 at 2.55 AM. The
delay has not been explained. The delay was deliberately made in order to
involve multiple numbers of persons as the accused persons. The police
allowed the fabrication and embellishment in order to rope maximum
number of persons in the police case as there has been a political rivalry in
the village between two groups with enmity amongst them. Though the
18 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -19-
names of only 11 persons were given by the complainant Anoop Singh in
his first information, the number of accused persons went on swelling
because the time gap was given by the police and the facility allowed by the
police for collection of large number of persons from the village in the
hospital and to talk to the complainant and the injured witnesses for
suggesting the names of the accused persons in addition. This was evident
from the fact that Baghel Singh refused to make any statement to the police
though he was declared fit to make statement and though he was repeatedly
asked to disclose the information for a few hours. His conduct in not
explaining, his refusal to give statement and the further evidence on record
to show that the villagers gathered in the hospital who conversed with the
injured witnesses leads weight to the theory of the defence that the intention
was to add on the names of the accused persons as many as they could. That
was freely allowed by the police. This Court, therefore ought to look at the
FIR and the genesis of the prosecution story with circumspection and
serious doubt.
9. The first challan that was filed by the police contains the names
of few accused persons. The three supplementary challans filed by the
police thereafter added additional accused persons. At the trial, by
improvement additional accused were again named and they were
summoned to face trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Thus the prosecution went on improving its story for adding number of
accused persons from time to time with a deliberate object to involve as
many as persons as they could.
10. The evidence of the injured witnesses of the prosecution and
19 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -20-
the cross-examination if carefully perused, would clearly reveal that there
are multiple omissions, improvements and contradictions which could not
have been ignored by the trial Court and their testimony in fact was required
to be rejected for such grave discrepancies in such a serious charge of
murder.
11. It is not in dispute that Gurpartap, the injured was having a
double barrel gun when they allegedly entered the drain and therefore, it was
the complainant party, who was the aggressor, which was armed with
double barrel gun and various other weapons with the other accused
persons. A cross case was filed by the appellants' party against the
complainant party and it is a different matter that in that case the order of
acquittal was recorded. There is a reason to believe that the complainant's
party was aggressor and had attacked the other side. The prosecution case is
that Gurpartap's double barrel gun was snatched by one of the accused and
the fire was made from the same gun but then the inference can be drawn
from evidence on record that because of the accidental fire from the said gun
two deaths have occurred. Therefore, the defence had probablised its case of
the firing during the course of snatching of accidental nature and not in the
nature of murder. The trial Court has however, has not gone through the
said aspect of the matter.
12. The FSL Report shows that the .12 bore double barrel licensed
gun of Gurpartap was alleged recovered by Malook Singh from a field in a
broken condition. It was in two parts and the barrel of the gun contained
two empty cartridges of 12 bore. The story of discovery of the said gun by
Malook Singh will have to be rejected as the gun was allegedly snatched and
20 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -21-
taken away as per the prosecution case by Balwinder Singh. The FSL
Report shows that the said gun brought by Gurpartap Singh was not in
working condition while the other gun recovered from Sukhjinder Singh @
Sonu was in working condition. The prosecution story is therefore
contradictory that though the gun belonging to Gurpartap Singh was not in
working condition, the firing was made from the said gun and that is the
major inconsistency in the prosecution case.
13. Adverting to medical evidence in respect of the injured persons,
learned counsel for the appellants argued that none of the injuries tallied
with the description thereof made by the witnesses as to the weapon by
which they were caused. In the absence of matching of the injuries with the
weapons it was unsafe to rely on the description made by the prosecution
about the role played by the accused persons and therefore the prosecution
case was doubtful as there was a planned attempt to involve multiple
number of persons because of the political rivalry amongst the two parties
laid by Rachhpal Singh, Ex-Sarpanch.
14. The alleged discovery of the various weapons from the accused
persons at their alleged behest is doubtful since the prosecution did not
examine the independent witnesses to support the theory of discovery of
various weapons.
15. There was no recovery of guns from Jarnail Singh and Harbans
Singh by the police. The FSL report shows that only one gun was used
namely the licensed gun of the father of Sonu while the other gun which was
allegedly snatched from Gurpartap Singh was not in working condition. In
other words only one gun was said to have been used in the melee but then
21 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -22-
the ocular evidence of the prosecution shows that with all the persons there
were five guns and therefore there is mystery created by the prosecution as
to the exact number of gun/s used in the alleged crime. The discrepancy is
material. The evidence tendered by the prosecution by bringing number of
guns in ocular evidence inconsistent with the FSL report renders the
prosecution case untrustworthy.
16. With reference to Ex.PR (Ex.P27) it was the case of
prosecution that two empties were recovered from the spot and two empty
shell of .12 bore gun remained fixed in the gun itself. The gun (Ex.PX) was
reported by FSL to have been in non-working and broken condition. The
recovery of the empties etc. as aforesaid and testimony of the eye witnesses
that after snatching of the gun from Gurpartap Singh, firing was made from
the same gun is clearly falsified and therefore the prosecution case ought to
be rejected on that score also.
17. In so far as the seizure of the gun from Sukhjinder @ Sonu is
concerned, the story advanced by the prosecution ought to be rejected
because the defence has led satisfactory evidence before the Court that in
fact the licensed gun of the father of Sonu was deposited on 25.5.2007 with
the gun house. In the wake of the said evidence, the question of use of the
licensed gun of the father of Sonu did not arise. The trial Court has wrongly
rejected the evidence of the defence regarding deposit of the gun with the
gun house and the finding is perverse.
18. The Trial Court committed a grave error in rejecting the
evidence of DW8 and DW9 in respect of the plea of alibi set up by the
appellants No.1 and 2 Ranbir Singh and Ranjit Singh. It is well settled legal
22 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -23-
position that though the burden of proof of alibi is on the accused persons,
the same also deserves to be appreciated on the parameters that are applied
for appreciation of prosecution evidence. It is in that context the evidence
of alibi rendered by the defence ought to have been accepted. The trial
Court has again recorded perverse finding in rejecting the said plea.
19. There is inconsistency and variance on the part of the eye
witnesses about the injuries caused by a particular weapon by a particular
person and therefore it was risky for the trial Court to rely on the testimony
of such witnesses whose evidence was not trustworthy and who were
admittedly inimical to the accused persons. Summing up; the learned
counsel for the appellants in all these appeals submitted that the prosecution
case is required to be rejected outright and all the appellants are required to
be acquitted.
20. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants contended
that all the accused could not have been convicted for the offences of
murder when the allegations are only against a few and not against all to that
effect. Number of accused persons have been attributed the simple/grievous
hurt etc. and therefore it was wrong to convict them the offences of murder
as such by holding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to
commit murders. The evidence does not show the common object of the
alleged unlawful assembly was to commit the murders and therefore it is
necessary to have a look at the evidence against each accused. Finally,
counsel for the appellants prayed for acquittal.
21. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent-State as well
as the complainant vehemently opposed the appeals and made the following
submissions :-
23 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -24-
22. The FIR is not an encyclopedia to expect the informant to
disclose all minute details particularly in respect of an incident which
certainly set the victims in a trauma in view of the sudden attack on them by
large number of persons. At any rate, the FIR names 11 persons as the
accused and there is further mention that there were 20-22 persons, though
the names of the remaining persons were not given. The supplementary
statement of Anoop Singh was recorded hardly after some hours in which all
the names were disclosed. Therefore there was no delay or concoction as
alleged by the defence in the matter of naming the accused persons as the
assailants and their respective weapons. At any rate it cannot be forgotten
that there are two murders and several injured persons, who were first
required to be taken to the hospital for their treatment. The deceased and the
injured are close relatives. It was natural that they had gone in trauma with
the fierce incident of assault on all of them by large number of persons. The
submission made by the appellants that therefore in the supplementary
statements names of the accused persons were added in connivance with the
Ex-Sarpanch or other persons from the village is wholly wrong. It cannot be
said that there was delay in lodging the FIR nor that the prosecution case
could be said to have been affected for any reason whatsoever. Therefore,
the plea regarding the delay or recording of supplementary statement of
Anoop Singh will have to be rejected.
23. It is important to note that as per the evidence of Dr. Gurjot
Singh Virdi (PW13) and Dr. Kirpal Singh (PW15) Saroop Singh had 30-40
injuries while Gurpartap had 11 injuries. The story that Gurpartap or
Amrinderpal Singh had self-inflicted injuries, must be rejected outright
24 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -25-
because they have suffered many injuries. PW16 Dr. Vishal Singla also
found that Baghel Singh had injuries and has a fracture on his skull. Similar
was the case of Anoop Singh, who had fracture of fibula bone.
24. The defence tried to be projected by the appellants that there
was a free fight or that the complainant party was aggressor in allegedly
attacking the appellants is not been borne out of record anywhere. The
theory propounded by the defence that while there was struggle between
Gurpartap Singh in snatching the gun, the bullets accidentally got fired from
the said gun of Gurpartap Singh and therefore the two persons had died from
the side of the complainant party has no foundation at all and hence the
defence is liable to be rejected.
25. The learned counsel for the State as well as complainant further
submitted that the prosecution has amply proved by evidence about the
existence of unlawful assembly and the common object of attacking the
complainant's party and committing murders. Pursuant to the common
object shared by all the accused persons the murders took place and
therefore it cannot be said that all the accused persons should not be held
guilty of murders and sentenced to life imprisonment. The counsel,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of all these appeals.
Consideration
26. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length.
We have perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
We have also perused the judgment and reasons recorded by the learned trial
judge for making the impugned judgment and order.
27. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants in
25 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -26-
all these appeals that there was unexplained delay in lodging FIR and that
the complainant party in connivance with the police fabricated and
embellished the prosecution version, upon examining the entire evidence in
the correct perspective is without any merit. It is true that the occurrence
had taken place at 3.45pm on 10.07.2007 and the FIR was lodged at 2.55pm
on 11.07.2007. Baghail Singh, Complainant-Anoop Singh and Gurpartap
Singh, who were injured were brought to hospital at 5.58pm, 6.15pm and
6.50pm, respectively on 10.07.2007, while Amritpal Singh injured was
brought to hospital at 12.55am on 11.07.2007. This is a case where two
persons were murdered and numbers of other persons were injured
grievously. Dead bodies were carried and were lodged at Ajnala Hospital
while the injured were shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. The
gun shots were fired in which two persons died. The injured were brought
to the hospital with injuries and it is only after the information was received,
their statements were recorded in the hospital upon the visit made by the
police officers and thereafter the first information report was registered.
The normal human conduct in such case would be to shift the injured
persons to the hospital first for providing them early treatment rather than
rushing to lodge FIR. At any rate, as stated above, the FIR was lodged at
2.55pm on 11.07.2007 after the injured persons were examined by the
Doctors and they had slightly settled. It cannot be forgotten that the manner
in which the incident took place was such that the injured persons must be in
a precarious mental condition. It cannot be expected of them that they
should have first lodged the FIR, rather than going to Hospital. The second
submission in this context that was made was that PW-2 Baghail Singh
26 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -27-
when initially interrogated by the police inspector SI Gurbachan Lal, had
refused to make any statement though insisted upon by the officer and that
therefore, there is a reason to believe that PW-2 Baghail Singh as well as the
complainant had definite plan to make consultation with the rivals and
thereafter give the name of all the accused persons. There is a further
submission that the FIR disclosed the names of only eleven persons while
twenty seven persons were made accused in the trial. By reading the entire
evidence in this context we find that though it is true that PW- Baghail
Singh was declared fit to make statement and was asked to make statement
by Gurbachan Lal SI and the people gathered over there, he did not make
the statement at that time. It is an admitted position that at a later stage he
had then given the statement which was recorded by the police. It is no
doubt true that reasons given by the trial court about the possibility of
infusion of pain killers by the Doctors to Baghail Singh or that he must have
been scared, resulting into Baghail Singh not making any statement at that
point of time, is based on no material as contended by the counsel for the
appellants. Nevertheless in our opinion this mere fact would not be enough
to look at his evidence with suspicion. The reason is in the first place that
his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, at the earliest and is
corroborated by the prosecution story as such. It would be unjust to reject
the testimony of PW-2 Baghail Singh in the wake of the peculiar situation
that he was also injured and brought to the hospital and two murders had
taken place. We, therefore, do not agree with the submission that there was
fabrication and embellishment by the prosecution as such, or that delay was
unpardonable delay in lodging the FIR.
27 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -28-
28. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants, that the challan was filed by the prosecution initially against
some of the accused persons. Thereafter in all three supplementary challans
were filed by the investigating machinery vide committal orders dated
13.02.2008, 03.05.2008 and 19.10.2009. Thereafter by virtue of order under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Sessions court four
accused persons by name Jarnail Singh, Harbans Singh, Ranjit Singh @
Rana and Ranbir Singh @ Babbu, were ordered to be summoned as accused
to face the trial. The statement made by learned counsel for the appellants in
these appeals that the prosecution thus went on improving its story by
supplementing the chargesheets on multiple occasions and therefore the
prosecution case suffered from embellishment and deliberate intention to
involve as many number of persons as possible that too because of the
political rivalry in the village, does not impress us. Merely because the
police filed supplementary chargesheets three in number, one by one and
thereafter the court also exercised power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it does
not necessarily follow that the inference should be drawn that the
prosecution case was after thought or that there was any deliberate move on
the part of the prosecution to involve number of person by such acts. After
all, filing of challan or supplementary challans or summoning the accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., forms the part of the process of the
administration of criminal justice. Nevertheless, at the end, it is for the court
to appreciate the evidence and thereafter to come to conclusion by finding
out the veracity and truth of the prosecution evidence. Therefore, merely
because supplementary chargesheets were filed against additional accused
28 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -29-
persons the prosecution case cannot be looked at with suspicion. The learned
counsel for the appellants in order to assail the testimony of PW-1 Anoop
Singh, PW-2 Baghail Singh, have heavily relied upon the fact about the
involvement of accused-Avtar Singh and urged on the basis thereof that the
testimony of these two witnesses should be rejected as they are the liars.
Much emphasis was placed on the evidence of DW-2 Dr. Gaggan Khanna,
Assistant Professor, Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar in that behalf. It is
stated that Avtar Singh son of Sunder Singh, was operated in the said
hospital on 10.06.2006 for infected right lower end tibia and bone grafting
and that he was made to walk for one month with the help of walker. It has
also come in his evidence that Avtar Singh lastly visited the hospital only on
26.07.2006. The submission that thus Avtar Singh was a disabled person to
commit any offence and that therefore both the witnesses were liars, does
not appeal to us. The reason is that he lastly visited the hospital on
26.07.2006 and the incident in question had taken place almost one year
thereafter i.e. On 10.07.2007. It is not possible to believe that Avtar Singh
must not have started leading normal life after his orthopedic surgery a year
back. We, therefore, do not accept the submission.
29. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants that Gurpartap Singh in the party of the complainant also had a
double barrel gun with him when the complainant party allegedly entered
the drain so also the other members also had dangerous weapons. The
contention is that therefore the complainant party was aggressor and had
attacked the accused party. There is a further submission that there was a
melee and during the course of snatching of gun etc. due to accidental firing,
29 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -30-
the two deaths must have occurred for which the benefit of doubt must go to
the accused persons. Looking to the entire ocular evidence tendered by the
prosecution, fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the FSL
report we are unable to agree with these submissions. The prosecution
evidence nowhere indicates nor there is any dent in the cross-examination of
the evidence of these witnesses that the complainant party and the Gurpartap
Singh and others were the aggressors and that they had made any attack on
the accused party. Having gone through the entire evidence, particularly the
cross-examination of the witnesses, there is no material to draw the
inference as sought by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that
Gurpartap Singh also had a double barrel licensed gun but then that by itself
would not clothe the complainant party as the aggressors.
30. The next submission that the prosecution evidence indicated
that five guns were utilized by either of the parties and that only one gun
was said to have been recovered in working condition and, therefore, there is
a serious inconsistency in the prosecution case, again does not appeal to us.
It is true that the FSL report shows that the licensed gun of Gurpartap Singh
was found to be not in working condition. But then the gun recovered from
Sukhjinder Singh @ Sonu was found to be in working condition as per the
FSL report. The ocular testimony of the witnesses clearly has been
corroborated that Sukhjinder Singh @ Sonu had used the gun to fire at the
deceased. The fact that Gurpartap Singh's gun was not in working
condition, has been easily explained by the prosecution. The said gun was
recovered upon the disclosure statement of Malook Singh and it was found
in a broken condition in the place where it was hidden. Clearly, therefore,
30 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -31-
Malook Singh or some other person must have broken the gun thereafter and
hidden the same. That is also the disclosure made by them. But then that by
itself would not lead to any inference as sought to be contended by the
counsel for the appellants. The further submission that for making
discovery/recovery no independent witness was examined by the
prosecution and therefore, the discovery/recovery should be rejected, does
not appeal to us. By now it is well settled that there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of police witnesses on discoveries as well as
recoveries, when their evidence inspires confidence. The independent
witnesses do not come forward and rather it has been the experience that
they do not support the prosecution version in the court. But then for that,
the evidence of the prosecution on the question of discovery/recovery cannot
be thrown out.
31. It is significant to note that though in the FIR eleven persons
were named as assailants, as is rightly contended by learned State counsel,
the FIR itself mentioned about the presence of 20-22 persons. It is,
therefore, not possible to hold that the FIR should have contained names of
all the accused persons as FIR is not an encyclopedia.
32. The submission on behalf of accused-Ranjit Singh @ Rana was
based on plea of alibi and was sought to be proved by DW-8 Jasbir Singh
resident of Village Kotli Sakkian Wali. The defence witness stated that on
10.07.2007 accused Ranjit Singh was present in the village Kotli Sakkian
Wali for resolving the dispute pertaining to his in-laws family. There is a
similar plea of alibi taken by the accused-Ranbir Singh. This plea was
sought to be proved by DW-9 Mohabbat Raj, Branch Manager, Co-operative
31 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -32-
Bank, Hall Gate, Amritsar who deposed that accused Ranbir Singh who was
working as Secretary in Othian Agriculture Cooperative Society was present
in his bank on 10.04.2007 and was getting prepared draft and remained there
up to 3.3/4.00pm. We have carefully perused the evidence of DW-8 and
DW-9 and we are satisfied that the said evidence of DW-8 and DW-9 for
supporting the plea of alibi, must be rejected and was rightly rejected by the
trial court by giving reasons with which we agree. As to the presence of all
the accused persons on the place of occurrence on the date of incident, we
find that the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses stands well
corroborated. We quote paragraph 30 from the judgment of the trial court
for the discussion on evidence including the discussion about the plea of
alibi. Para 30 reads thus:
"30. The record has shown that all the prosecution
witnesses have unequivocally stated regarding the
presence of all the above named accused persons on the
place of occurrence. PW1 has categorically stated that
Ranbir Singh alias Babbu was armed with DBBL gun
and had fired shot towards Saroop Singh and the other
accused Jarnail Singh and Harbans Singh had fired shots
from their DBBL gun towards Kewal Singh and that the
accused Ranjit Singh along with the other accused
persons had attacked upon the members of the
complainant party. The other PWs have lent their
corroboration to the statement of PW1 Anoop Singh,
PW4 Gurpartap Singh has categorically stated that Ranjit
32 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -33-
Singh alias Rana had given a datar blow on his right
elbow and had given second datar blow on the thumb of
his left foot and the third blow on his right lower leg.
Meaning thereby, all these accused persons who were
statedly found innocent by the police in the course of
respective enquiries conducted by DW10 Manminder
Singh the then Superintendent of Police (Detective) on
23.11.2007 and DW11 Surjit Singh the then
Superintendent of Police (Detective) on 20.9.2008, had
actively participated in the commission of the offence. If,
DW8 Jasbir Singh and DW9 Mohabbat Raj have tried to
prove the plea of alibi, taken by the accused Ranjit Singh
and Ranbir Singh, then it can be said that they were
handpicked witnesses, who were supposed to depose in
favour of the accused persons. Even otherwise also,
these witnesses have not been able to prove the plea of
alibi as DW8 has stated that Ranjit Singh had remained
in village Kotli Sakkian Wali up to 4.00 P.M. Even DW9
Mohabbat Raj has stated that Ranbir Singh had remained
present in the bank upto 3.30/4.00 PM. This shows that
the accused Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh could have
easily reached their village Dhariwal Bagge because
their village was not far off from the village Kotli
Sakkian wali and Co-operative Bank Hall Gate,
Amritsar. There is no documentary evidence on the
33 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -34-
record to show that Ranbir Singh had gone to Co-
operative Bank, Amritsar at the relevant time. Meaning
thereby, these accused have not been able to prove the
plea of alibi to the extent required by law. They should
have proved on record that in all probability they could
not have been present on the place of occurrence at the
relevant time. But, they have failed to do so."
33. Another accused i.e. Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu son of
Satnam Singh took an interesting plea that the licensed guns in the name of
his father Satnam Singh was in fact deposited with the Proprietor Punjab
Armoury, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar, on 25.05.2007 and therefore the question
of use thereof for alleged commission of murder by Sukhjinder Singh alias
Sonu, did not arise.
34. In this connection we have gone through the testimony of DW-
4-Pawan Bhatia with the assistance of the learned counsel for the rival
parties. There is no need for us to make repetitive discussion since the
reasons have been recorded by the learned trial Judge in that behalf in paras
32 and 33. We agree with the reasons given by the trial court for dealing
with the evidence in that behalf. We quote paras 32 and 33 as under:
32. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for
the accused is that .12 bore DBBL gun no.25596 and 10
cartridges were deposited with the Proprietor Punjab
Armory, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar, on 25.5.2007 by
Satnam Singh in whose name the license of the gun was.
So, while being deposited, the said gun could not have
34 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -35-
been used in the present occurrence and the whole of the
prosecution story is false on this very count, as has been
proved by DW4 Pawan Bhatia, Proprietor of Punjab
Armoury Amritsar.
33. No doubt, DW4 Pawan Bhatia has proved the entry
DW4/D regarding the deposit of the gun in question in
the armoury at serial no.418 dated 25.5.2007. But the
said entry is not that relevant. The relevant document is
receipt Ex.DW4/A which pertains to the deposit of the
gun in the armoury. However, this very witness has
candidly admitted in his cross-examination that writing
of the receipt is in the hands of his manager, who has
since expired. So, it cannot be said that the receipt
Ex.DW4/A has been proved on record. The said receipt
could have been proved by the manager himself. DW4
has not even stated that he identified the handwriting of
his manager. This, it cannot be said that the gun bearing
no.25596 had not been deposited in Punjab Armoury.
Meaning thereby, the said gun could have been used in
the commission of the offence, as has been proved by the
prosecution.
35. We, therefore, do not accept the theory of deposit of the
licensed gun as stated by accused Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu.
36. The trial court has convicted all the accused persons by holding
that there was an unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons and that
therefore, they were all responsible for commission of double murder and
causing injuries to the other persons from the complainant party. Before us
35 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -36-
we have an important question of law which is required to be decided.
"Whether the material on record shows that there was an unlawful assembly
for commission of murder of the two persons and whether all the accused
persons had knowledge and intention to commit the murders as held by the
trial court."
37. Upon careful perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court,
we find that there is no clear-cut finding in that behalf in the first place.
Merely because two murders were committed and the accused persons were
together with weapons, the trial court has come to conclusion that there was
an unlawful assembly for commission of offence of murders and therefore
all the accused, who were present were held guilty of offence of murder. It
is better to quote the finding recorded by the trial court which reads thus:
35. .............. As the accused persons, who were 27 in
numbering (more than five persons) and it can be well
inferred from their acts that the common object of the
persons composing the assembly of the above said
persons was to commit an offence and as such, was to be
designated as unlawful assembly. The above said
persons, being armed with deadly weapon had taken part
in rioting and had caused the death of two persons. So,
all the above said accused except Satnam Singh who has
not been named by the complainant Anoop Singh or any
other prosecution witnesses to be present at the place of
occurrence as member of the unlawful assembly, have
committed the offence under section 148 of IPC.
36 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -37-
36. The second head of the charge sheet pertains to the
offence under section 302 of IPC. PW1 Anoop Singh has
categorically stated that Ranbir Singh alias Babbu,
Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu, who were armed with
DBBL gun had fired shots towards Saroop Singh hitting
on his body while Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh fired
shots towards Kewal Singh, hitting on his person. All the
above named accused persons had fired shots from their
respective guns the pellets of which had hit the person of
Saroop Singh and Kewal Singh. All these persons were
members of an unlawful assembly, the object of which
was to give beatings and teach a lesson to the members
of the complainant party, firing direct shots towards
Saroop Singh and Kewal Singh fully proves the intention
of the accused persons. The investigating officer vide
recovery memo Ex.P10 has recovered two empties of the
12 bore cartridges from the place of occurrence. The
investigating officer SI Upkar Singh has recovered .12
bore DBBL gun from the accused Sukhjinder Singh alias
Sonu in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Thus, the
offence under section 302 of IPC is proved against the
accused Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu, Ranbir Singh alias
Rana, Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh son of Lal Singh
and their other co-accused except Satnam Singh have
37 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -38-
committed the offence under section 302 of IPC with the
aid of section 149 of IPC.
38. Perusal of the above discussion shows no definite finding about
all other accused qua common object except Ranbir Singh alias Babbu,
accused Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu, accused Harbans Singh and accused
Jarnail Singh son of Lal Singh who were only the four persons who had
actually fired shots on Saroop Singh hitting on his body and Kewal Singh
hitting on his person and both died. In other words the finding is that there
was a clear-cut overt act on the part of the aforesaid four named accused
persons. The learned counsel for the rival parties have cited number of
decisions on the aspect of unlawful assembly. However we find that the
leading case is Kuldip Yadav and others versus State of Bihar, 2011(5)
SCC, 324 decided by the Apex Court. The same has been followed by the
Apex Court thereafter in some decisions. The Apex Court has had to say
thus:
25) Apart from conviction under Section 302, all the
accused were also convicted under Section 149IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
demonstrated that, first of all, there was no common
object, even if, it is admitted that there was a common
object, the same was not known to anybody, in such
circumstances, punishment under Section 149 IPC is not
warranted. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the State submitted that when the charge is
under Section 149 IPC, the presence of the accused as
38 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -39-
part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction,
even if, no overt act is imputed to them. In other words,
according to him, mere presence of the accused as part
of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. In
order to understand the rival claim, it is useful to
refer Section 149 which reads as follows:-
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly
guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common object. - If an offence is committed
by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object, every person
who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly,
is guilty of that offence."
26) The above provision makes it clear that before
convicting accused with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the
Court must give clear finding regarding nature of
common object and that the object was unlawful. In the
absence of such finding as also any overt act on the part
of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed
would not be sufficient to prove common object. Section
149 creates a specific offence and deals with punishment
39 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -40-
of that offence. Whenever the court convicts any person
or persons of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a
clear finding regarding the common object of the
assembly must be given and the evidence discussed
must show not only the nature of the common object but
also that the object was unlawful. Before recording a
conviction under Section 149 IPC, essential ingredients
of Section 141 IPC must be established. The above
principles have been reiterated in Bhudeo Mandal and
Others vs. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 755.
27) In Ranbir Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 391; (1995) 4 SCC 392, this Court
highlighted that where there are party factions, there is a
tendency to include the innocent with the guilty and it is
extremely difficult for the court to guard against such a
danger. It was pointed out that the only real safeguard
against the risk of condemning the innocent with the
guilty lies in insisting on acceptable evidence which in
some measure implicates such accused and satisfies the
conscience of the court.
28) In Allauddin Mian and others Sharif Mian and
another vs. State of Bihar, 1989 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal)
628 : (1989) 3 SCC 5, this Court held:-
"....Therefore, in order to fasten vicarious
responsibility on any member of an unlawful
40 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -41-
assembly the prosecution must prove that
the act constituting an offence was done in
prosecution of the common object of that
assembly or the act done is such as the
members of that assembly knew to be likely
to be committed in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly. Under this
section, therefore, every member of an
unlawful assembly renders himself liable for
the criminal act or acts of any other member
or members of that assembly provided the
same is/are done in prosecution of the
common object or is/are such as every
member of that assembly knew to be likely
to be committed. This section creates a
specific offence and makes every member of
the unlawful assembly liable for the offence
or offences committed in the course of the
occurrence provided the same was/were
committed in prosecution of the common
object or was/were such as the members of
that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed. Since this section imposes a
constructive penal liability, it must be
strictly construed as it seeks to punish
41 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -42-
members of an unlawful assembly for the
offence or offences committed by their
associate or associates in carrying out the
common object of the assembly. What is
important in each case is to find out if the
offence was committed to accomplish the
common object of the assembly or was one
which the members knew to be likely to be
committed. There must be a nexus between
the common object and the offence
committed and if it is found that the same
was committed to accomplish the common
object every member of the assembly will
become liable for the same. Therefore, any
offence committed by a member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of any one
or more of the five objects mentioned
in Section 141 will render his companions
constituting the unlawful assembly liable for
that offence with the aid of Section
149, IPC...."
29) It is not the intention of the legislature in
enacting Section 149 to render every member of
unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every
offence committed by one or more of its members. In
42 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -43-
order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that the
incriminating act was done to accomplish the common
object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the
knowledge of other members as one likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. If the
members of the assembly knew or were aware of the
likelihood of a particular offence being committed in
prosecution of the common object, they would be liable
for the same under Section 149 IPC.
30) In Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (2003) 2 SCC 257, this Court
has once again explained Section 149 and held as under:
"14. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
provides that if an offence is committed by
any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object, every person
who at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly
is guilty of that offence. The two clauses
of Section 149 vary in degree of certainty.
The first clause contemplates the
commission of an offence by any member of
an unlawful assembly which can be held to
have been committed in prosecution of the
common object of the assembly. The second
clause embraces within its fold the
43 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -44-
commission of an act which may not
necessarily be the common object of the
assembly, nevertheless, the members of the
assembly had knowledge of likelihood of the
commission of that offence in prosecution of
the common object. The common object
may be commission of one offence while
there may be likelihood of the commission
of yet another offence, the knowledge
whereof is capable of being safely
attributable to the members of the unlawful
assembly. In either case, every member of
the assembly would be vicariously liable for
the offence actually committed by any other
member of the assembly. A mere possibility
of the commission of the offence would not
necessarily enable the court to draw an
inference that the likelihood of commission
of such offence was within the knowledge of
every member of the unlawful assembly. It
is difficult indeed, though not impossible, to
collect direct evidence of such knowledge.
An inference may be drawn from
circumstances such as the background of the
incident, the motive, the nature of the
assembly, the nature of the arms carried by
the members of the assembly, their common
object and the behaviour of the members
soon before, at or after the actual
commission of the crime. Unless the
applicability of Section 149 - either clause -
is attracted and the court is convinced, on
facts and in law, both, of liability capable of
being fastened vicariously by reference to
44 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -45-
either clause of Section 149 IPC, merely
because a criminal act was committed by a
member of the assembly every other
member thereof would not necessarily
become liable for such criminal act. The
inference as to likelihood of the commission
of the given criminal act must be capable of
being held to be within the knowledge of
another member of the assembly who is
sought to be held vicariously liable for the
said criminal act...."
The same principles have been reiterated in State of
Punjab vs. Sanjiv Kumar alias Sanju and others,
2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 377: 2007 (3) R.A.J. 605 :
(2007) 9 SCC 791.
Summarization of the principles attracting Section
149
31) In the earlier part of our order, we have analysed the
evidence led in by the prosecution and also pointed out
several infirmities therein. In our view, no overt act had
been attributed to any other accused persons except
Brahmdeo Yadav (A1) towards the murder of Suresh
Yadav. Had the other accused persons intended or
shared the common object to kill Suresh Yadav, they
must have used the weapons allegedly carried by them
to facilitate the alleged common object of committing
murder. The Sessions Judge, on analysis, held that no
case under Section 307/149 against all the 11 accused
45 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -46-
persons be made out for causing murderous assault and
hurt to Naresh Yadav, Munshi Yadav, Bindeshwar
Yadav and Ganauri Yadav. The learned Judge further
observed that it appears that at least 4 of the accused
persons were armed with gun but no gun shot injury was
inflicted against any of the aforesaid injured prosecution
witnesses. Had the accused persons intended to kill the
witnesses, they must have used the surest weapon of
committing murder i.e. gun against any of the aforesaid
witnesses. In view of the fact that common object was
not known to anybody and in the light of the principles
enunciated over application of Section 149 IPC and with
the available material on the side of the prosecution, we
hold that it is not safe to convict the accused persons
under Section 149 IPC.
39. The counsel for rival parties have cited some more judgments.
We do not think it necessary to discuss each and every judgment.
40. Thus in the wake of the above discussion made by the trial
court which we have already quoted, we find that the finding regarding
unlawful assembly runs counter to the aforesaid proposition of law
pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Yadav (supra). Similar
is the case at hand. What we find upon marshaling and appreciation of the
entire evidence in the present case is, that after Malook Singh gave a
lalkara, the assault began. But for commission of two murders, four
accused only used guns and fired at the two deceased. There is no evidence
46 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -47-
that the other accused had caused any fatal injury leading to any death much
less the duo deceased.
41. In our considered opinion, in the light of the ratio of the
decision of the Apex Court, the finding about unlawful assembly by the
accused persons for commission of two murders must be held to be wrong
and illegal. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the trial court about
unlawful assembly in respect of the other accused persons. We, however,
hold that the accused Ranbir Singh alias Rona, Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu,
Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh son of Lal Singh shared the common
intention to commit murder of two persons and therefore they have been
rightly convicted, but they should have been convicted with the aid of
Section 34 IPC rather than Sections 148 and 149 IPC. As a sequel we will
have to acquit all the other accused persons for the offences under Sections
148 and 149 IPC, regarding unlawful assembly.
42. Coming to the other accused persons than the above named four
accused, we find that the trial court made no mistake in holding that they
had assaulted and caused injuries to other members of the complainant
party. In this behalf the trial court has made discussion in support of other
accused persons from paragraphs 38 onwards. We quote the relevant
paragraphs as under:
38. PW2 Amritpal Singh has categorically stated that
after hearing the hue and cry made by Anoop Singh and
Baghail Singh, he along with Gurpartap Singh reached
the spot. Gurpartap Singh was having a gun with him for
his safety, but Balwinder Singh and Gurbhej Singh
47 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -48-
snatched his gun and then Balwinder Singh fired shot
from the said gun towards him which hit the tibia of his
right leg. So, in this way, while firing shot towards the
person of Amritpal Singh, the accused Balwinder Singh
has committed the offence under section 307 of IPC,
whereas the other accused, except Satnam Singh, has
committed the offence under section 307 of IPC with the
aid of section 149 of IPC.
39. ...........PW2 Baghail Singh has deposed that the
accused Avtar Singh had given the datar blow on the
right side of his forehead, which is injury no.1 in MLR
Ex.PW15/G. He has also stated that the accused
Balwinder Singh had given a datar blow to him which
had hit on back side of his right shoulder, which is injury
no.2 in MLR Ex.PW15/G. PW15. Dr. Kirpal Singh has
specifically opined that injury no.1 and 2 were given
with sharp edged weapon and on the basis of the X-ray
opinion of PW16 Dr. Vishal Singla, the said injuries
were declared grievous in nature. Thus, the accused
Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh have committed the
offence under section 326 of IPC which is charge under
fifth head and the other co-accused have committed the
offence under section 326 IPC with the aid of section
149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
48 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -49-
40. PW4 Gurpartap Singh in his testimony has testified
that Kabal Singh had given a datar blow on left ankle on
his foot and Ranjit Singh had given a datar blow on his
right elbow and on his left foot and right leg. PW15 Dr.
Kirpal Singh has declared the said injuries no.8 and 9 as
grievous in nature and as such the accused Kabal Singh
and Ranjit Singh have committed the offence under
section 326 of IPC, and the other co-accused have
committed the offence under section 326 IPC with the
aid of section 149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
41. ..........PW2 Baghail Singh, accused Jarnail Singh son
of Hazara Singh had given a kirpan blow on the dorsal
side of his left hand which is injury no.8 in MLR
Ex.PW15/G and has been declared grievous in nature,
given with sharp edged weapon, by Dr. Kirpal Singh on
the basis of the opinion given by the Radiologist PW16
Dr. Vishal Singla. Although under the head 8 of the
charge sheet Kabal Singh has been charge sheeted under
section 326 of IPC but this charge has already been
discussed and covered under the head 6th and as such
now requires no more consideration.
42. PW1 Anoop Singh has stated that Jaswant Singh had
caused injury on his knee with iron rod which is injury
no.9 as per the MLR Ex.PW15/K and has been declared
grievous in nature given with blunt weapon. Thus, the
49 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -50-
accused Jaswant Singh has committed the offence under
section 325 of IPC, and the other co-accused have
committed the offence under section 325 IPC with the
aid of Section 149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
43. PW2 Baghail Singh has stated that the accused Jaspal
Singh had caused injury on his right wrist with a rod
blow, which is injury no.11 as per MLR Ex.PW15/G and
has been declared grievous in nature. Thus, the accused
Jaspal Singh has committed the offence under section
325 of IPC, and the other co-accused have committed the
offence under section 325 IPC with the aid of section
149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
44. PW2 Baghail Singh has stated that the accused
Davinder Singh had caused injury on his left wrist and
back which have been declared as grievous by Dr. Kirpal
Singh and have been given with blunt weapon. Thus, the
accused Davinder Singh has committed the offence
under section 325 of IPC, and the other co-accused have
committed the offence under section 325 IPC with the
aid of section 149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
45. PW2 Baghail Singh has also stated that the accused
Lal Singh had given datar blow on his right palm which
is injury no.11 in MLR Ex.PW15/G and has been
declared as grievous in nature. Thus, the accused Lal
Singh has committed the offence under section 325 of
50 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -51-
IPC, and the other co-accused have committed the
offence under section 325 IPC with the aid of section
149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
46. PW4 Gurpartap Singh has stated that the accused
Nirmal Singh had caused him dang blow on left leg
which is injury no.8 in his MLR and has been declared
grievous by Dr. Kirpal Singh. Thus, the accused Nirmal
Singh has committed the offence under section 325 of
IPC, and the other co-accused have committed the
offence under section 325 IPC with the aid of section
149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
47. As regards the head of the charge sheet 14,15,16, 17
and 18 dealing with the offence under section 324 of IPC
read with section 149 of IPC. PW1 Anoop Singh has
stated that Joginder Singh had caused Kirpan blow on his
right eye brow which has been declared as injury no.1 in
MLR Ex.PW15/K and has been declared to be given by a
sharp edged weapon but simple in nature. So, the offence
under section 324 of IPC is proved against Joginder
Singh. Thus, the accused Joginder Singh has committed
the offence under section 324 of IPC, and the other co-
accused have committed the offence under section 324
IPC with the aid of section 149 of IPC, except Satnam
Singh.
48. PW1 Anoop Singh has also stated that Dilbagh Singh
had given a kirpan blow injury on his right side of his
hand which is injury no.7 as per MLR Ex.PW15/K and
51 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -52-
has been declared simple attracting the offence under
section 324 of IPC. Thus, the accused Dilbagh Singh has
committed an offence under section 324 of IPC, and the
other co-accused have committed the offence under
section 324 IPC with the aid of section 149 of IPC,
except Satnam Singh.
49. PW4 Gurpartap Singh has stated that the accused
Karaj Singh had given injury to him with a kirpan on his
head which is injury no.2 in his MLR Ex.PW15/I and
has been declared as simple, meaning thereby covering
the section 324 of IPC. Thus, the accused Karaj Singh
has committed the offence under section 324 of IPC, and
the other co-accused have committed the offence under
section 324 IPC with the aid of section 149 of IPC,
except Satnam Singh.
50. PW2 Baghail Singh has stated on oath that
Balwinder Singh had given a datar blow to him on the
back side of his right shoulder which is injury no.3 in his
MLR Ex.PW15/G and has been declared simple in
nature given with sharp edged weapon and as such
covering the section under section 324 of IPC. Thus, the
accused Balwinder Singh has committed the offence
under section 324 of IPC, and the other co-accused have
committed the offence under section 324 IPC with the
aid of Section 149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
52 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -53-
51. Anoop Singh while appearing as PW1 has stated that
Jaswant Singh, Lakha Singh and Sawinder Singh had
given him simple injuries with blunt weapon and as such
covering the section under section 323 of IPC. Thus, the
accused Jaswant Singh, Lakha Singh and Sawinder
Singh have committed the offence under section 323 of
IPC, and the other co-accused have committed the
offence under section 323 IPC with the aid of section
149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
52. PW4 Gurpartap Singh has stated on oath that the
accused Skattar Singh and Nirmal Singh had given
simple injuries to them. Thus, the accused Sakattar Singh
and Nirmal Singh have committed the offence under
section 323 of IPC, and the other co-accused have
committed the offence under section 323 IPC with the
aid of section 149 of IPC, except Satnam Singh.
43. We have quoted the aforesaid paragraphs as no purpose would
have been served by repeating the discussion about the evidence. Consistent
with our finding that there was no unlawful assembly, the finding by the trial
court in the aforesaid paragraphs, convicting the accused persons with the
aid of Section 149 must be held to be illegal. We set aside the said
finding and hold that these remaining accused persons cannot be convicted
with the aid of Section 149 IPC. We however hold them guilty of the
offences for which the trial court has convicted them for the offences other
than 302 IPC read with 148, 149 IPC; but with the aid of Section 34 IPC as
53 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013
along with 8 connected appeals -54-
they shared common intention. To repeat, we hold the appellants Ranbir
Singh alias Babbu, Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu, Harbans Singh and Jarnail
Singh son of Lal Singh guilty of commission of offence of murders of
Saroop Singh and Kewal Singh under Section 302 IPC with the aid of
Section 34 IPC.
44. We then find that the trial court has imposed the sentence on
these appellants for the aforesaid offences of causing injuries which cannot
be said to be on higher side. The sentence awarded is adequate.
45. The upshot of the above discussion is that the following
accused persons must be held guilty of the offence of murder under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and for the other offences for which the trial
court has also convicted them:
1. Sukhjinder Singh alias Sonu
2. Jarnail Singh s/o Lal Singh
3. Harbans Singh
4. Ranbir Singh alias Babbu
46. The rest of the accused persons are convicted for various
offences for which they were convicted by the trial court but with the aid of
Section 34 IPC. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with the following
operative order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal Numbers: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013, Criminal Appeal No.D-1201-DB of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.D-3603-DB of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.D-37- DB of 2013, Criminal Appeal No.D-42-DB of 2013, Criminal 54 of 63 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 ::: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -55- Appeal No.D-77-DB of 2013, Criminal Appeal No.D-78-DB of 2013, Criminal Appeal No.D-79-DB of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No.D-80-DB of 2013 are partly allowed and accordingly disposed of with the following order of conviction and sentence given against the respective name of the accused/convict:
Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of No. convicts payment of fine
1. Malook Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months
2. Dilbagh Singh 307/34 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three months IPC 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 3 Sawinder Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC
55 of 63 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 ::: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -56-
Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of
No. convicts payment of fine
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
4 Joginder Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
5 Jaspal Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
6 Davinder Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
56 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -57-
Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of
No. convicts payment of fine
7 Kabal Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
8 Lakha Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
9 Avtar Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
10. Lal Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
57 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -58- Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of No. convicts payment of fine 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 11 Jaswant Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months
12. Karaj Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months
13. Gurnam Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 58 of 63 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 ::: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -59-
Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of
No. convicts payment of fine
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
14 Nirmal Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
15 Sukhjinder 302/34 Life 10,000/- S.I. one year
Singh @ Sonu IPC Imprisonment
307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
16 Jarnail Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
S/o Sher Singh IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
59 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -60-
Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of
No. convicts payment of fine
17 Balwinder 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
Singh IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
18 Skater Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
19 Sukhchain 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
Singh IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month
IPC
324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month
IPC half years
323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days
IPC months
20 Harjinder Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months
IPC years
326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years
IPC years
60 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::
Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -61- Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of No. convicts payment of fine 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 21 Satnam Singh 29-B R.I. Three 3000/- S.I. Three months Arms years Act 22 Gurbhej Singh 307/34 R.I. Five years 3000/- S.I. three months IPC 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 23 Gursharan 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months Singh alias IPC years Sahib Singh 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 24 Jarnail Singh 302 IPC Life 10,000/- S.I. one year S/o Lal Singh Imprisonment 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 61 of 63 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 ::: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -62- Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of No. convicts payment of fine 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 25 Harbans Singh 302 IPC Life 10,000/- S.I. one year Imprisonment 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 26 Ranjit Singh 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months 27 Ranbir Singh 302 IPC Life 10,000/- S.I. one year Imprisonment 307/34 R.I. Five 3000/- S.I. three months IPC years 326/34 R.I. Four 3000/- S.I. three years IPC years 62 of 63 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 ::: Criminal Appeal No.D-120-DB of 2013 along with 8 connected appeals -63- Sr. Name of the U/S Sentence Fine in ` In default of No. convicts payment of fine 325/34 R.I. two years 1000/- S.I. one month IPC 324/34 R.I. one and 750/- S.I. one month IPC half years 323/34 R.I. six 500/- S.I. fifteen days IPC months
(ii) All the accused shall be given set off regarding detention as per law.
(iii) The substantive sentences of all the convicts shall run concurrently.
( A.B. CHAUDHARI )
JUDGE
August 31, 2018 ( B.S. WALIA )
'raj/V. Asija' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
63 of 63
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 02:05:21 :::