CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana 1. Davinder Singh State of Punjab 2. Gurdeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J 1. This judgment shall dispose of above criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated by learned Faridkot, which 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CR Davinder Singh Versus Punjab CR Gurdeep Singh Versus Punjab Date of Decision HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-399 for the respondents in CRR-2128 Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab. Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate as Amicus Curiae Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRR-2128 GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, which is being assailed. While in CRA In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) … Appellant ... Respondent CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) … Petitioner ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 03.04.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Narinder Singh, Advocate, 399-DB-2004 and 2128-2004. Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab. Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate, 2128-2004. mentioned appeal as well as criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated 06.04.2004 passed Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, While in CRA-399-DB-2004, appellant VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) – Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act Singh in CRR Rahul Bhupinder Singh imposed upon Davinder Singh. 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. 302, 307, 458, 120 (Ex.PK/1) lodged The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR reads as under: “I am resident of village brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev Singh has expired. I alongwith my whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short distance from us. Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard was glowing 12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught of Sukhdev Singh Singh son of Gurpal my father N his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot. order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah. killed alongwith their gun. On hearing Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards However, Davinder Singh fired the pe Singh on his back 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 2 ) Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act Singh in CRR-2128-2004 challenges the acquittal of Rahul Bhupinder Singh and also seeks enhancement of sentence as imposed upon Davinder Singh. The matter arises out of FIR No.175 dated 15.07.2001, under Sect 302, 307, 458, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 of the Arms Act lodged on the basis of statement (Ex.P The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR reads as under: I am resident of village Rupana and I am into cultivation. We are 3 brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev Singh has expired. I alongwith my brother’s whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short istance from us. On 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, our neighbour Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard glowing. Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, who was carrying a 12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught of Sukhdev Singh for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun at my father Naranjan Singh, who was sitting on a cot and the shot hit on his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot. order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah. killed-killed, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house alongwith their gun. On hearing gun shots being fired Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards However, Davinder Singh fired at them as we ellets hit Baldev Singh on the back of his Singh on his back, right buttock, back of both thighs as well as on his Davinder Singh assails his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner – Gurdeep 2004 challenges the acquittal of Gurpal Singh and and also seeks enhancement of sentence as 175 dated 15.07.2001, under Sections B, 34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 of the Arms Act statement (Ex.PK) of Gurdeep Singh. The translated gist of the statement (Ex.PK) leading to recording of FIR Rupana and I am into cultivation. We are 3 brothers and 5 sisters, who all are married. My elder brother Sukhdev brother’s family reside with parents, whereas my elder brother Ajaib Singh resides separately at a short at about 9.30 PM, our neighbour Gurmeet Singh came to our house. The electric bulb in the courtyard . Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, who was carrying a 12 bore double barrel gun accompanied by his son Rahul Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda entered the gate of our house. Bhinda raised a lalkara exhorting his companion that a lesson be taught to Davinder Singh son for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur. Davinder Singh fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun at ranjan Singh, who was sitting on a cot and the shot hit on his face. Davinder Singh reloaded his gun and fired another shot. In order to save ourselves, we hid in the verandah. When we raised alarm , Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house gun shots being fired, our neighbourer Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards our house. them as well in order to kill them and on the back of his right thigh and hit Sohan back of both thighs as well as on his Gurdeep Singh. house. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my father N Muktsar injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh we treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my nephew Davinder Singh. bore double barrel gun to us with an intention Nishan Singh Sd/- Gurdeep Singh. 3. Pursuant to Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and conducted inquest proceedings. The post dead body of Niranjan Singh body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted and prepared into parcel. Two empty possession from inside the were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately prepared into parcels. 18.07.2001 (Ex.PX) and pursuant there An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh) was also produced, which was taken into possession separate 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 3 ) lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my father Naranjan Singh, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh to Civil Hospital, Muktsar for treatment where my father N injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh we treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my nephew Davinder Singh. Gurpal Singh had handed over his licensed 12 bore double barrel gun to his son Davinder Singh and sent them to attack with an intention to kill us. I was proce Nishan Singh to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken. Gurdeep Singh.” Pursuant to recording of the aforesaid statement of Gurdeep Singh by SI Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and conducted inquest proceedings. The post dead body of Niranjan Singh was got conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted and prepared into parcel. Two empty cartridges were also taken into possession from inside the deori (gate) and another two empty cartridges were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately prepared into parcels. Accused Davinder Singh was arrested on 18.07.2001 and upon interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PX) and pursuant thereto got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun. An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh) was also produced, which was taken into possession separate lower legs and left wrist. Thereafter, Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda ran towards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my ranjan Singh, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh to Civil Hospital, for treatment where my father Naranjan Singh succumbed to his injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh were, however, admitted for treatment. The motive was that Davinder Singh and others suspected that his daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my Gurpal Singh had handed over his licensed 12 his son Davinder Singh and sent them to attack I was proceeding alongwith Sarpanch to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken. recording of the aforesaid statement of Gurdeep Singh by SI Santokh Singh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) came to be lodged. SI Santokh Singh proceeded to the hospital alongwith other police officials and conducted inquest proceedings. The post-mortem examination on the was got conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. SI Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence from where blood stained soil was lifted cartridges were also taken into (gate) and another two empty cartridges were picked up from outside the gate in the street, which were separately Accused Davinder Singh was arrested on upon interrogation, he made a disclosure statement got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun. An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Singh (father of Davinder Singh) was also produced, which was taken into possession separately. to lodge the report, when you met me. Action be taken. got recovered a 12 bore double barrel gun. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, Davinder Singh son of Gurpal and Gurpal Singh Muktsar on vide order dated Muktsar framed charges against 458/302/307 IPC and Rahul Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 30 guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, the dead body of mortem report as Ex.P on the dead body of death was due to to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which death in an ordinary course of nature. He to the x respect of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on 14.07.2001 wherein he described 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 4 ) conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, Rahul Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda and Gurpal Singh in the Court of Sub D on 28.08.2001, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 01.09.2001. Learned framed charges against Davinder Singh under Sections 458/302/307 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and 30 of the Arms Act on 03.10.2001 guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted post the dead body of Naranjan Singh on mortem report as Ex.PA, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of Naranjan Singh death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which death in an ordinary course of nature. He to the x-ray examination conducted by him respect of injuries sustained by Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh Dr. Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsa medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on 14.07.2001, proved their MLRs as Ex.P wherein he described the injuries found on the challan was presented against accused ingh, Rahul Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda Divisional Judicial Magistrate, , who committed the case to the Court of Sessions . Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Davinder Singh under Sections Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Whereas Bhupinder Singh and Gurpal Singh were charged for offences under Sections 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and under 03.10.2001 to which they pleaded not The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 15 The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein under:- had conducted post-mortem examination on Naranjan Singh on 15.07.2001, proved the post- , wherein he described the injuries found Naranjan Singh and opined that the cause of cardio respiratory arrest as a result of shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. He also stated with regard ray examination conducted by him on 17.07.2001 in Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh. , Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on , proved their MLRs as Ex.PF and Ex.PG respectively, injuries found on their person. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) PW-3 Baldev Singh going towards market ( that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any occurrence. was permitted to be cro PW-4 Gurdeep Singh got recorded by him in the FIR PW-5 Gurmit Singh 9.30 PM He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard Singh Singh empty handed came there. Singh for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired double barrel gun and chest gun and fired another shot Singh (complainant) the out of the house alongwith their gun. fired complainant’s house Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh by the complainant. PW-6 Surjit Singh Gill site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 5 ) Baldev Singh stated that about 4/5 months back, when he was going towards market (bazar) at about 9.00 PM that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any occurrence. The said witness was, however, declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Gurdeep Singh (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations got recorded by him in the FIR. Gurmit Singh (eye-witness) stated that 9.30 PM, he went to the house of Gurdeep He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard Singh who was carrying a double barrel gun and Rahul Bhupinder Singh empty handed came there. He stated Singh raised a lalkara exhorting his companion t for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired double barrel gun hitting Naranjan Singh and chest. He stated that accused gun and fired another shot at him (Gurmit Singh) and Gurdeep Singh (complainant), but in order to save the verandah. Thereafter Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house alongwith their gun. fired, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards complainant’s house. PW-2 described the injuries Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh in the same manner as described by the complainant. Surjit Singh Gill, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P about 4/5 months back, when he was at about 9.00 PM, he came to know that there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any The said witness was, however, declared hostile and examined by the Public Prosecutor. (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations stated that on 15.07.2001 at about went to the house of Gurdeep Singh (complainant). He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh, his father Naranjan Singh was sitting on a cot in the courtyard, Davinder a double barrel gun and Rahul Bhupinder He stated that Rahul Bhupinder exhorting his companion to teach a lesson for teasing their daughter Navdeep Kaur and thereafter accused Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh fired a shot from his 12 bore Naranjan Singh on his face, forehead He stated that accused Davinder Singh reloaded his at him (Gurmit Singh) and Gurdeep order to save themselves, they hid in Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house alongwith their gun. On hearing gun shots being , Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards 2 described the injuries sustained by in the same manner as described , Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PL). Singh (complainant). VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) PW-7 Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that of occurrence Ex.P PW-8 Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh (complainant) Navdeep Kaur used to make telephone call mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh, came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused Davinder Singh) saw daughter Navdeep Kaur, eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter. PW-9 Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on Santokh Singh visited the place of occ lifting shells of 12 bore from the outside the gate PW-10 Ajaib Singh Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and Davinder presence pursuant to disclosure statements interrogation PW-11 HC Major Singh, Ex.P was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar said day, HC Surinder Singh 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 6 ) Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that of occurrence on 15.07.2001 and had taken photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and proved negatives thereof as Ex.P Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh (complainant) stated that about 1 year ago, he had love affair with Navdeep Kaur, daughter of accused Davinder Singh used to make telephone call to his house. mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh, came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused Davinder Singh) saw him (PW- daughter Navdeep Kaur, then whole of their family would be eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter. Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on Santokh Singh visited the place of occ lifting blood stained soil, he had taken into possession shells of 12 bore from the deori (gate) and two other empties from outside the gate. Ajaib Singh, brother of Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and son of Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and Davinder Singh were interrogated by SI Santokh Singh in his presence. He further deposed regarding the recoveries effected pursuant to disclosure statements interrogation. HC Major Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavi Ex.PU in evidence, wherein he deposed that on was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar said day, HC Surinder Singh had handed Satnam Singh, photographer, stated that he had visited the place and had taken photographs Ex.P1 to and proved negatives thereof as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. Davinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, nephew of Gurdeep Singh about 1 year ago, he had love affair with , daughter of accused Davinder Singh and that she his house. He stated that when his mother complained to the wife of accused Davinder Singh, he came to their house and threatened them that if he (accused -8 Davinder Singh) with his whole of their family would be eliminated, as they are defaming his daughter. Palwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh stated that on 15.07.2001, SI Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence and that apart from he had taken into possession two empty (gate) and two other empties from , brother of Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and son of Naranjan Singh (deceased), stated that on 18.07.2001, when he went to the Police Station Sadar Muktsar, Ajit Singh, owner of Petrol Pump, produced accused Davinder Singh and Gurpal Singh before SI Santokh Singh. He stated that Gurpal Singh and Singh were interrogated by SI Santokh Singh in his regarding the recoveries effected pursuant to disclosure statements made by accused during who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 22.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar and that on the had handed him over the case VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) property including cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun. on Gurjant Punjab, Chandigarh raised by the two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil him objections Constable Gurjant Singh Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with PW-12 Constable Gurjant S into evidence his affidavit Ex.P 26.07.2001 property including empty cartridges, the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12 bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office, but in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil thereafter on obje he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh information in the police station, 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 7 ) property including parcels containing blood stained soil, empty cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun. on 26.07.2001, the case property Gurjant Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, but due to certain objections raised by the said office, he (Constable Gurjant Singh) wo parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil him. He stated that thereafter on 06.08.2001 objections, he had again handed over the Constable Gurjant Singh, which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. Constable Gurjant Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PV, wherein he deposed that on 26.07.2001, MHC Major Singh had handed over property including parcels containing empty cartridges, blood stained soil and simple soil for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12 bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office, but due to certain objections having been in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil, he returned the same with MHC thereafter on 06.08.2001, MHC Major Singh objections had again handed over him the he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. HC Balwinder Singh stated that on information in the police station, parcels containing blood stained soil, empty cartridges and 12 bore double barrel gun. He further stated that , the case property was sent through Constable Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL, due to certain objections having been (Constable Gurjant Singh) returned wo parcels containing blood stained soil and simple soil with 06.08.2001, after removing the handed over the said two parcels to , which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered , who is a formal witness, has tendered , wherein he deposed that on had handed over to him the case parcels containing 12 bore double barrel gun, blood stained soil and simple soil for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the next day i.e. 27.07.2001, he deposited the parcels containing 12 bore double barrel gun and 4 empty cartridges in the said office, having been raised by the said office in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and simple with MHC Major Singh. He stated that Major Singh after removing the handed over him the said two parcels, which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. stated that on 15.07.2001, upon receipt of information in the police station, he was associated the police VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) party headed by SI Santokh Singh hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch Nishan Singh near Kotkapura recorded FIR Ex.P of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and investigation conducted by various memos prepared during course of the same. with regard to the statement that he identif PW-14 HC Surinder Singh affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar and that the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil, earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore 18.07.2001 containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the case property was handed over to Major Singh PW-15 Gurmit Rupana, supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM 6. The prosecution Ex.PCC & Ex.PDD 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 8 ) party headed by SI Santokh Singh hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch Nishan Singh near Kotkapura chowk and SI Santokh Singh recorded Gurdeep’s Singh statement Ex.P FIR Ex.PK/1 came to be lodged. He stated of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and investigation conducted by SI Santoskh Singh various memos prepared during course of the same. with regard to the recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused Davinder Singh. that he identified the signatures of SI Santokh Singh (since died). HC Surinder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar and that on the said day, SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil, earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore 18.07.2001, SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him a parcel containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the case property was handed over to Major Singh Gurmit Singh, Sub Station Operator, 66 KV Grid, Sub Station, Rupana, produced the summoned record pertaining to supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM The prosecution after tendering into evidence report Ex.PCC & Ex.PDD) closed its evidence. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from party headed by SI Santokh Singh and they started for the hospital, but they met Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and Sarpanch chowk and SI Santokh Singh got statement Ex.PK, on the basis of which came to be lodged. He stated about the preparation of inquest report by SI Santokh Singh and as regards the entire Santoskh Singh and also proved various memos prepared during course of the same. He stated recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure Davinder Singh. He also stated the signatures of SI Santokh Singh (since died). , who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 15.07.2001, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar Muktsar SI Santokh Singh had deposited with him the case property i.e. parcels containing blood stained soil, simple earth, 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore. He stated that on Singh had deposited with him a parcel containing 12 bore double barrel gun and that upon his transfer from Police Station Sadar Muktsar to Police Lines, Muktsar, the case property was handed over to Major Singh. Singh, Sub Station Operator, 66 KV Grid, Sub Station, produced the summoned record pertaining to electric supply and stated that there was electric supply at 9.15 PM. into evidence reports of FSL (Ex.PBB, Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were wherein they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) statement of accused Cr.P.C. is as under: “I am innocent. I am MA, B.Ed. of our village examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW Mangal Singh, who owned 17 7 years prior to the alleged oc lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh was not on speaking t with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the place of occurrence. On supply breakdown arrival of started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in t Singh His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said Nishan Singh in the elections. On that accou after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated in the case. I and my father were brought licensed gun of my father on the police. My brot authorities. 8. Accused – Gurpal Singh Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under: 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 9 ) statement of accused Davinder Singh recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: I am innocent. I am MA, B.Ed. and was posted of our village. My daughter Navdeep Kaur was examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW Mangal Singh, who owned 17-18 killas of land and he died issueless. 6 7 years prior to the alleged occurrence, said Mangal Singh lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh was not on speaking terms with his brothers and with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the place of occurrence. On 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, there was electric supply breakdown in the village. There was hue and cry ab arrival of Kala Kaccha thieves and the people due to fear and panic started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in t Singh sustained fire arm injuries and carried to his courtyard and he died. His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said Nishan Singh in the elections. On that accou after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated in the case. I and my father were brought licensed gun of my father on 15.07.2001 and were illegally detained by the police. My brother Shivraj Singh had given telegrams to higher authorities.” Gurpal Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under: recorded in terms of Section 313 and was posted as Lecturer in a school . My daughter Navdeep Kaur was graduate. After her examination, she had gone to her maternal parents about 1 month prior to the present alleged occurrence. Gurdeep Singh PW is adopted son of 18 killas of land and he died issueless. 6- currence, said Mangal Singh gave Rs.10 lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other brothers of Gurdeep Singh were demanding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he inherited from Mangal Singh and on that account PW Gurdeep Singh erms with his brothers and father and was residing with his family in his farm house at a distance of 1 and half KM from the 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, there was electric in the village. There was hue and cry about the thieves and the people due to fear and panic started firing indiscriminately. Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun while going out in the street as a result therefore, Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh PWs were injured and in that exchange of firing, Naranjan and carried to his courtyard and he died. His dead body was taken to CH Mukhtsar by his son Ajaib Singh alone and learnt from the doctor about the nature of fire arm. ASI Baljit Singh, sister’s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch of village Rupana was also called. Said Sarpanch was closed to Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, the then CM, Punjab. Our family opposed said Nishan Singh in the elections. On that account, Nishan Singh and others after deliberations, got me and other members of my family implicated in the case. I and my father were brought by the police alongwith 15.07.2001 and were illegally detained by her Shivraj Singh had given telegrams to higher in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under: and carried to his courtyard and he died. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) “I am innocent I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the police on Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal detention in this context. 9. Accused – Section 313 Cr.P.C. “I am innocent years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983. occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel Singh. I was arrested in the case on My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities my false implic enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent. Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me discharged and a supplementary report under Section also mov 10. In their defence, the Bhupinder Singh Wakeel Singh, stated that on and upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana. Wakeel Singh stated Rahul Bhupinder Singh 14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that he had moved an application marked to DSP Bhupinder Singh. 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 10 ) I am innocent. PWs are inimical towards me and my family m I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the police on 15.07.2001 alongwith my licensed gun and cartridges. My son Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal detention in this context.” Rahul Bhupinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., while taking plea of alibi, I am innocent. At the time of alleged occurrence, I was less than 18 years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983. occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel Singh. I was arrested in the case on 16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh. My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities my false implication. Bhupinder Singh, DSP, Muktsar conducted enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent. Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me discharged and a supplementary report under Section also moved to the Court.” In their defence, the accused have examined Bhupinder Singh, who had conducted enquiry on an application moved by Wakeel Singh, stated that on 29.08.2001, he had gone to village Rupana upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana. Wakeel Singh stated that in the first week of July, Rahul Bhupinder Singh had come to meet him at his village and that on 14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that he had moved an application for enquiry to SSP, Muktsar, which was marked to DSP Bhupinder Singh. . PWs are inimical towards me and my family members. I alongwith my son Davinder Singh were brought from our house by the 15.07.2001 alongwith my licensed gun and cartridges. My son Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to higher authorities about our illegal Rahul Bhupinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of taking plea of alibi, pleaded as under: At the time of alleged occurrence, I was less than 18 years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983. About 1 week prior to the occurrence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel 16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh. My uncle Wakeel Singh moved applications to higher authorities against ation. Bhupinder Singh, DSP, Muktsar conducted enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent. Application Ex.DB was moved by SHO of P.S.Muktsar for getting me discharged and a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was accused have examined two witnesses. DW-1 DSP , who had conducted enquiry on an application moved by 29.08.2001, he had gone to village Rupana upon investigation, accused Rahul Bhupinder Singh was found to be innocent, as it was found that he was not present in the village and had gone to his maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana. DW-2 in the first week of July, 2001, his nephew had come to meet him at his village and that on 14.07.2001, he was with him. He stated that on 15.07.2001, he came to know about his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) involvement in a case and that for enquiry to SSP, Muktsar, which was embers. 16.07.2001 from village Maujgarh. enquiry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) 11. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed against them, but held committed offence Section 27 of the Arms Act and Under Section 302 Under Section 458 Under Section 27 of the Arms Act 12. Learned counsel for the conviction, submitted that case and that falsity of the case would be eviden the star witness was immediate neighbour prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that witness namely PW would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of oc be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on 14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and that as such, given the fact that t including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence. 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 11 ) The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed against them, but held accused Davinder committed offence punishable under Sections 302, Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under: Under Section 302 IPC - To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment further RI for 3 months. Under Section 458 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for and to pay a fine of Rs. payment of fine to undergo further RI for Under Section 27 of the Arms Act - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for to pay a fine of Rs. fine to undergo further RI for Learned counsel for the appellant – Davinder Singh conviction, submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that falsity of the case would be eviden the star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW was immediate neighbour of the complainant, did not support the case of prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that witness namely PW-5 Gurmit Singh had been introduced falsely, which would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of oc be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on 14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and that as such, given the fact that there is delay in sending the case property including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, acquitted Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh of the charges framed Davinder Singh guilty of having under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under sentenced him as under: imprisonment and to pay a fine of and in default of payment of fine to undergo months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 2 months To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 1 month Davinder Singh, while assailing his he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that falsity of the case would be evident from the fact that one of of the prosecution namely PW-3 Baldev Singh, who of the complainant, did not support the case of prosecution at all. It has further been submitted that even the other eye- been introduced falsely, which would be evident from the fact that he has stated the date of occurrence to be 15.07.2001, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place on 14.07.2001. It has been submitted that even the Investigating Officer namely SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and here is delay in sending the case property including blood stained soil etc. to the FSL, wherein certain objections had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence. had been raised, no sanctity can be attached to such kind of evidence. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged occurrence, to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be set aside. 13. Opposing the where not only the complainant PW with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW resided in neighbourhood, has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have occurred due to the fact that more than 1½ occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is evidence inasmuch as Muktsar stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan Singh were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001. Dr. N.R.Duggal prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on 14.07.2001. It has, thus, been submitted that havi consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 12 ) Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged , a group of thieves and dacoits had come to the village and due to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh sustained injuries and lost his life. submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case not only the complainant PW-4 Gurdeep Singh has state with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW resided in neighbourhood, has fully supported the case of prosecution and has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have occurred due to the fact that he was deposing in the Court after a gap of more than 1½ years. It has been submitted that the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is evidence inasmuch as PW-2 Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001. Dr. N.R.Duggal as regards time of death prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on . It has, thus, been submitted that havi consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW Learned counsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged thieves and dacoits had come to the village and due to panic, villagers started firing indiscriminately, wherein Naranjan Singh also fired from his gun and it was during the exchange of firing that lost his life. It has, thus, been submitted that the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case 4 Gurdeep Singh has stated in tune with the allegations leveled in the FIR, even PW-5 Gurmit Singh, who has fully supported the case of prosecution and has narrated the occurrence identically and that the slight discrepancy in the mentioning of the date of occurrence, which is stated to be 15.07.2001 instead of 14.07.2001 is merely on account of mistake, which could have he was deposing in the Court after a gap of It has been submitted that the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 14.07.2001 is fortified from the medical 2 Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, stated that deceased as well as injured Sohan Singh and Baldev were brought in hospital on 14.07.2001. Even the opinion of PW-1 death is in tune with the case of prosecution that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on . It has, thus, been submitted that having regard to the consistent ocular version as given by the complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) Singh) and PW medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had been held by the trial Court. 14. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 15. Since it is a case apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the prosecution in this regard. PW post-mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh post-mortem report as Ex. body as under: “1. Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest and right shoulder. They were about 25 in to .02 cms to side of the neck which have oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection the temporal bone on the right side. Mid cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and tracks we fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge of nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recov the muscle of the right shoul 16. PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated regards recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the case of prosecution. 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 13 ) Singh) and PW-5 Gurmit Singh, which is fully corroborated from the medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had been held by the trial Court. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the Since it is a case of homicidal death on account of gun apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the prosecution in this regard. PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted the mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries found on the dead body as under: Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest and right shoulder. They were about 25 in to .02 cms to 1x0.2 cm margins of wound inverted except 3 wounds on the left side of the neck which have E verted margins. Blood clot oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection the temporal bone on the right side. Middle minengial cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and tracks were found leading to the wounds in covering of the brains. There was fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recov the muscle of the right shoulder.” Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the case of prosecution. In any case, the factum of death on account of firing 5 Gurmit Singh, which is fully corroborated from the medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is fully established as had We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the of homicidal death on account of gun-shot fire, it is apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence led by the 1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conducted the mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh, proved the bed the injuries found on the dead Multiple lacerated wound present in an area of approximately 20”x20” over the face mainly right side, right temporal region forehead neck, upper part of chest and right shoulder. They were about 25 in number. Their sizes vary from .02 1x0.2 cm margins of wound inverted except 3 wounds on the left verted margins. Blood clot and liquid blood was oozing out on pressing these wounds. On dissection, there were two holes in le minengial artery was torn, cranial cavity contain blood. Covering of the brain had lacerated wounds in the same area. Two pellets recovered from brain tissue. 2 cms from the surface and re found leading to the wounds in covering of the brains. There was fracture right mistored bone corresponding to the lacerated bone on the bridge nose. A pellet was recovered from nasal cavit. One pellet recovered from Dr. N.R.Duggal while describing the injuries specifically stated as recovery of pellets from the dead body which is in tune with the In any case, the factum of death on account of firing VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) of gun-shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing. 17. The occurrence is sought to be established fro complainant (PW present in the house that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his presence therein is mos the occurrence, PW occurrence i.e. on present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith hi Rahul Bhupinder Singh to a lalkara Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased. PW-4 further stated that well as PW in the verandah went out in the street and since Singh and Sohan Singh ha firing, accused fired two shots them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from the testimony of PW 18. Although PW cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 14 ) shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing. The occurrence is sought to be established fro complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh), who is son of the deceased and was in the house when the occurrence had taken place. Given the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his presence therein is most natural and cannot be doubted. While narrating the occurrence, PW-4 Gurdeep Singh specifically stated occurrence i.e. on 14.07.2001 when he alongwith PW present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith hi Rahul Bhupinder Singh entered into their house. He stated that pursuant lalkara raised by Rahul Bhupinder Singh, his father (Davinder Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased. 4 further stated that one more shot was fired in their house, but he as well as PW-5 Gurmit Singh managed to save themselves by taking cover verandah and that thereafter when they raised alarm, the accused went out in the street and since two more neighbourer Singh and Sohan Singh had also been attracted on account of firing, accused fired two shots at them as well as a result of which both of them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from the testimony of PW-5 Gurmit Singh. Although PW-3 Baldev Singh was injured in the occurrence and was also cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness shot is not disputed by Davinder Singh (accused) although Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has given a different version regarding the occurrence of firing. The occurrence is sought to be established from the testimony of 4 Gurdeep Singh), who is son of the deceased and was when the occurrence had taken place. Given the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Gurdeep Singh, his t natural and cannot be doubted. While narrating 4 Gurdeep Singh specifically stated that on the day of 14.07.2001 when he alongwith PW-5 Gurmit Singh was present in his house, then accused Davinder Singh alongwith his son entered into their house. He stated that pursuant raised by Rahul Bhupinder Singh, his father (Davinder Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased. hot was fired in their house, but he as 5 Gurmit Singh managed to save themselves by taking cover and that thereafter when they raised alarm, the accused two more neighbourers namely Baldev also been attracted on account of noise of gun them as well as a result of which both of them sustained injuries. The aforesaid version is fully corroborated from 3 Baldev Singh was injured in the occurrence and was also cited as a prosecution witness, but when he stepped into the witness-box, Singh), who was carrying a gun, fired from the same hitting the deceased. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) he did not support the case of prosecution. PW statement and stated that he had had not witnessed any occurrence. false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined Baldev Singh on person: “1. A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the knee joint. Fresh bleed 19. PW-2 Dr. Jagrity was cross nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of h examination so as to either doubt regard to the aforesaid complainant (PW medical evidence in the shape of presence of PW had deposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his statement need not be relied upon. contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimon Singh and PW 20. Although learned counsel the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 15 ) he did not support the case of prosecution. PW statement and stated that he had just come to know about the firing, but had not witnessed any occurrence. The aforesaid statement is apparently false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined Baldev Singh on 14.07.2001 itself and found the following injuries on his A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the knee joint. Fresh bleeding was present.” 2 Dr. Jagrity was cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but substantial could be elicited during the course of h examination so as to either doubt her veracity or h regard to the aforesaid position, wherein the testimon complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh) and of PW medical evidence in the shape of statement of presence of PW-3 Baldev Singh, it is apparent that PW eposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his statement need not be relied upon. There is no other evidence to the contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimon Singh and PW-5 Gurmit Singh. Although learned counsel attempted to assail the case of prosecution on the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of he did not support the case of prosecution. PW-3 resiled from his just come to know about the firing, but The aforesaid statement is apparently false inasmuch as he himself was injured in the occurrence, as is borne out from the medical evidence in the shape of testimony of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined 14.07.2001 itself and found the following injuries on his A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on back of right thigh 15 cm above the ” examined on behalf of the accused, but substantial could be elicited during the course of her cross- veracity or her opinion. Having position, wherein the testimonies of the 4 Gurdeep Singh) and of PW-5 Gurmit Singh alongwith statement of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity shows the , it is apparent that PW-3 Baldev Singh eposed falsely in the Court to help the accused. As such, his There is no other evidence to the contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimonies of PW-4 Gurdeep attempted to assail the case of prosecution on the ground that the Investigating Officer SI Santokh Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, but this Court finds that it was on account of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) the fact that SI Santokh Singh has been stated by PW associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted by SI Santokh Santokh Singh. In any case, disclosure statement and the recover from the testimon Singh. Under these circumstances, non will not dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is a case based on eye evidence where the role of the investig importance. 21. As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a perusal of the testimon Constable Gurjant Singh does sh of case property by the laboratory in respect of two parcels and simple soil depositing in the FSL after removal of objections. Singh and PW case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered with. A perusal of the report of FSL wou were intact and were not tampered with 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 16 ) the fact that SI Santokh Singh had expired has been stated by PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh, who had remained associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted by SI Santokh Singh and has identified the Santokh Singh. In any case, the factum of the accused having suffered disclosure statement and the recovery pursuant thereto from the testimonies of PW-10 Ajaib Singh and PW Under these circumstances, non-examination of SI Santokh Singh dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is a case based on eye-witness account and not evidence where the role of the investigator importance. As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a perusal of the testimonies of PW-11 HC Major Singh and PW Constable Gurjant Singh does show that there is some delay in depositing case property on account of the fact that some objections were raised by the laboratory in respect of two parcels and simple soil and thereafter the said two parcels were sent again depositing in the FSL after removal of objections. Singh and PW-12 Constable Gurjant Singh case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered perusal of the report of FSL wou were intact and were not tampered with. xpired that he was not examined, as 13 HC Balwinder Singh, who had remained associated with SI Santokh Singh during investigation. PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh has stated in detail with regard to the investigation and has identified the signatures of SI the factum of the accused having suffered pursuant thereto is also borne out 10 Ajaib Singh and PW-13 HC Balwinder examination of SI Santokh Singh dent the case of prosecution in any manner particularly when it is witness account and not solely on circumstantial ator would assume all the more As far as delay in submitting the case property in FSL is concerned, a 11 HC Major Singh and PW-12 ow that there is some delay in depositing on account of the fact that some objections were raised by the laboratory in respect of two parcels containing blood stained soil and thereafter the said two parcels were sent again for depositing in the FSL after removal of objections. Both PW-11 HC Major 12 Constable Gurjant Singh have stated that as long as case property remained in their possession, the same was not tampered perusal of the report of FSL would indicate that sample seals . There is nothing on record to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case property as the seals the delay ipso facto 22. Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a plea that on gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing indiscriminately was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life. However, sa dacoits had come to the village and the indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any oth had been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing arrival of the As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died due to exchange of firing the village is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution stands PW-4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW substantiated from the medical evidence. establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been fired from the gun recovered from accused. 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 17 ) show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case property as the seals were found to be intact ipso facto would not affect the case of prosecution. Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a plea that on 14.07.2001, a group of dacoits comprising gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing indiscriminately and that Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life. aid plea is not substantiated in any manner inasmuch as in case dacoits had come to the village and the indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any oth been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing arrival of the Kala Kaccha thieves/dacoits As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died due to exchange of firing on arrival of the Kala Kaccha is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution stands fully established from the consistent testimoni 4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW substantiated from the medical evidence. establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been from the gun recovered from accused. show that there has been any kind of tampering or substitution of the case were found to be intact. Under these circumstances, would not affect the case of prosecution. Coming to the defence plea raised by Davinder Singh, appellant Davinder Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken dacoits comprising Kala Kaccha gang had come to the village and the people due to fear started firing Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun and it was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life. id plea is not substantiated in any manner inasmuch as in case dacoits had come to the village and the villagers had fired indiscriminately, there would have been some report with the police in this regard. Neither any PW stated in this regard nor any other witness been examined to establish the aforesaid plea of firing on account of thieves/dacoits in the village on 14.07.2001. As such, the said plea raised by Davinder Singh that the deceased died Kala Kaccha thieves/dacoits in is absolutely hollow and is not substantiated. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the case of the fully established from the consistent testimonies of 4 Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and PW-5 Gurmit Singh, which stand The report of FSL (Ex.PCC) establishes that the empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been from the gun recovered from accused. The fact that one of the was due to exchange of firing that Naranjan Singh had lost his life. 14.07.2001. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) injured/eye- The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the trial Court as regards guilt of appellant Da interference and are hereby affirmed. same is hereby dismissed. 24. As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant the findings in respect of acquittal of Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the complainan concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is found to be sans merits and is hereby dism 03.04.2025 Vimal 2004 (O&M) and 2004 (O&M) ( 18 ) -witness had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution. The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the trial Court as regards guilt of appellant Davinder Singh do not warrant interference and are hereby affirmed. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant the findings in respect of acquittal of Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the complainant for enhancement of sentence in respect of Davinder Singh is concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is found to be sans merits and is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution. The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the vinder Singh do not warrant any Finding no merit in the appeal, the As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant seeking reversal of Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh is concerned, the evidence on record would not justify reversal of the findings of acquittal, as there is hardly any credible evidence to establish their involvement in the matter. As regards prayer of the t for enhancement of sentence in respect of Davinder Singh is concerned, the instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is issed. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document