CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana 1. Kimti Lal and another State of Haryana 2. Ram Pal State of Haryana 3. Jaswant Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA Kimti Lal and another Versus State of Haryana CRA Versus State of Haryana CRA Jaswant Singh @ Pehalwan & others Versus State of Haryana Date of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, for appellant No.2 in CRA-D-642 for appellant No.2 in CRA-S-1378 for the appellant in CRA-D-661 In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA-D-642-DB-2004 (O&M) … Appellants ... Respondent CRA-D-661-DB-2004(O&M) … Appellant ... Respondent CRA-S-1378-SB-2004(O&M) … Appellants ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 18.01.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with 642-DB-2004; 1378-SB-2004 and 661-DB-2004. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J 1. The above mentioned three appeals are being taken up together, having arisen from the same very impugned judgment i.e. judgment 12.06.2004 and order Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which the appellants namely Kimti Lal, Ram Parkash, Ram Pal, Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh have been convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal 3. Ram Par 4. Sher Singh 5. Jaswant Singh 6. Dalbir Singh 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal 3. Ram Parkash 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal 3. Ram Parkash 4. Sher Singh 5. Jaswant Singh 6. Dalbir Singh (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 2 ) Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for appellant No.1 in CRA-642 Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate, for appellant No.1 in CRA-S-1378 Mr. R.K.Arya, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. The above mentioned three appeals are being taken up together, having arisen from the same very impugned judgment i.e. judgment 6.2004 and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which the appellants namely Kimti Lal, Ram Parkash, Ram Pal, Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh have been convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal 3. Ram Parkash 4. Sher Singh 5. Jaswant Singh 6. Dalbir Singh Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal 3. Ram Parkash Rigorous imprisonment for life and a Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each 1. Kimti Lal 2. Ram Pal Ram Parkash 4. Sher Singh 5. Jaswant Singh 6. Dalbir Singh Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.5000/ offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate, for 642-DB-2004. Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate, 1378-SB-2004. Mr. R.K.Arya, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. The above mentioned three appeals are being taken up together, having arisen from the same very impugned judgment i.e. judgment dated 6.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which the appellants namely Kimti Lal, Ram Parkash, Ram Pal, Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh have been Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) 1. Jaswant Singh 2. The matter pertains to death of Virender Gaba murdered by 6 accused namely Dalbir Singh, Sher Singh and Ram Pal. 3. The FIR (Ex. is alleged that he works at Shifali Hotel and that on 18. with his brother Virender Gaba about 10:15 PM, 3 persons namely Ram Pal), Hanuman person, who used to sell fruit and who all were in an to the dining complainant’s brother sit in a decent manner. Hanuman and Raju Tangewala offence to the same and a scuffle took place. The aforesaid 3 persons caught hold of Vika of the hotel from where they picked up soda water bottles and also bottles of ‘Limca’ and ‘Pepsi’ started hurling the same towards the complainant and ot complainant and his companions rushed towards them to stop them from doing so. Raju and Hanuman from his head and gave injuries with soda water bottle on his head, eyes (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 3 ) 1. Jaswant Singh Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The matter pertains to death of Virender Gaba murdered by 6 accused namely, Kimti Lal, Ram Parkash, Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh, Sher Singh and Ram Pal. The FIR (Ex.PF/2) was lodged at the instance of Sand is alleged that he works at Shifali Hotel and that on 18. with his brother-in-law Vikas Sahni was Virender Gaba, who used to supply butter and cheese 15 PM, 3 persons namely Raju Tangewala , Hanuman (also referred to as Ram Parkash) who used to sell fruit and who all were in an dining hall. Raju Tangewala took off his shirt to which complainant’s brother-in-law Vikas Sahni objected while advising him to sit in a decent manner. Hanuman and Raju Tangewala to the same and a scuffle took place. The aforesaid 3 persons hold of Vikas Sahni from his neck and slapped him and went out of the hotel from where they picked up soda water bottles and also bottles of ‘Limca’ and ‘Pepsi’, which were lying at a tea shop across the road and started hurling the same towards the complainant and ot complainant and his companions rushed towards them to stop them from doing so. Raju and Hanuman, however, caught hold of Virender Gaba from his head and gave injuries with soda water bottle on his head, eyes Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The matter pertains to death of Virender Gaba, alleged to have been Kimti Lal, Ram Parkash, Jaswant Singh, ) was lodged at the instance of Sandip Arora, wherein it is alleged that he works at Shifali Hotel and that on 18.06.2000 he along as present at the hotel where who used to supply butter and cheese had also come. At Raju Tangewala (also referred to as (also referred to as Ram Parkash) and an unknown who used to sell fruit and who all were in an inebriated state came took off his shirt to which law Vikas Sahni objected while advising him to sit in a decent manner. Hanuman and Raju Tangewala, however, took to the same and a scuffle took place. The aforesaid 3 persons s Sahni from his neck and slapped him and went out of the hotel from where they picked up soda water bottles and also bottles which were lying at a tea shop across the road and started hurling the same towards the complainant and others. The complainant and his companions rushed towards them to stop them from however, caught hold of Virender Gaba from his head and gave injuries with soda water bottle on his head, eyes VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) and temporal region and also on the ba the said injuries V persons who had been sitting in a white coloured Tata Sierra vehicle parked outside, came there to help the accused sat in the vehicle complainant and others. One of the said persons, while waving a pistol even threatened to shoot them. 4. The matter was investigated by the police. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence from where broken pieces of glass, blood stained soil were collected, sealed and taken into possession. A rough site plan of the pla prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Injured survive and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 30.06.2000. Post mortem examination w Inquest proceedings were also conducted. investigation Kimti Lal, Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash, Jaswant Singh and Dalbir Singh on 27. Magistrate commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 and 506 IPC and Section 2 committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against the aforesaid five accused on 04.04.2001. (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 4 ) and temporal region and also on the back of his head and on account of the said injuries Virender Gaba fell down. In the meantime persons who had been sitting in a white coloured Tata Sierra vehicle parked outside, came there to help the accused the vehicle and attempted to run over their vehicle over the complainant and others. One of the said persons, while waving a pistol even threatened to shoot them. The matter was investigated by the police. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence from where broken pieces of glass, blood stained soil were collected, sealed and taken into possession. A rough site plan of the pla prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Injured - Virender Gaba had been taken to hospital, but could not survive and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 30.06.2000. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Virender Gaba. proceedings were also conducted. investigation, challan was presented initially Kimti Lal, Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash, Jaswant Singh and Dalbir Singh on 27.09.2000 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial who upon finding that the facts commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 and 506 IPC and Section 2 committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against the aforesaid five accused on 04.04.2001. ck of his head and on account of Gaba fell down. In the meantime, another four persons who had been sitting in a white coloured Tata Sierra vehicle parked outside, came there to help the accused. The three assailants also and attempted to run over their vehicle over the complainant and others. One of the said persons, while waving a pistol The matter was investigated by the police. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence from where broken pieces of glass, blood stained soil were collected, sealed and taken into possession. A rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Virender Gaba had been taken to hospital, but could not survive and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 30.06.2000. Post- as conducted on the dead body of Virender Gaba. proceedings were also conducted. Upon conclusion of was presented initially against five accused namely Kimti Lal, Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash, Jaswant Singh and Dalbir in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial who upon finding that the facts prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against the aforesaid five accused on 04.04.2001. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) 5. Subsequently, upon arrest of another co had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender, a supplementary challan was presented against said Sher Singh and consequently fresh charges were framed against all the six accused on 18. Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 506 not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Jaswant Singh was also charged for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 2 PWs, the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:- PW-1 HC Satish Kumar 9.08.2000 Inspector Ram Kumar had presented a country made pistol (12 bore) along with two live cartridges examining the same he had given his opinion working order and proved PW-2 UGC Mangat Singh is a formal witness who deposed that on 30.6.2000, SI Umed Singh entrusted three sealed enve containing special reports for their onward transmission to Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher police officials which accordingly delivered to the authorities concerned on the same very day. PW-3 HC Dharam Pal tendered his affidavit Ex.PC he deposed that on 19.6.2000 Police Station Civil Lines, SI Umed Singh had deposited two parcels in the aforesaid parcels to Constable Kulbir Singh for depo (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 5 ) Subsequently, upon arrest of another co-accused namely Sher Singh had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender, a supplementary challan was presented against said Sher Singh and consequently fresh charges were framed against all the six accused on 18. 148, 302/149, 307/149, 506 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Jaswant Singh was also charged for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 2 PWs, the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to herein HC Satish Kumar stated that he is a trained armourer and that on 9.08.2000 Inspector Ram Kumar had presented a country made pistol (12 bore) along with two live cartridges examining the same he had given his opinion working order and proved his report Ex.PA/1 to this effect. UGC Mangat Singh is a formal witness who deposed that on 30.6.2000, SI Umed Singh entrusted three sealed enve containing special reports for their onward transmission to Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher police officials which accordingly delivered to the authorities concerned on the same very day. HC Dharam Pal tendered his affidavit Ex.PC he deposed that on 19.6.2000 when Police Station Civil Lines, SI Umed Singh had deposited two parcels in the malkhana and that on 18.9.2000 he handed over the aforesaid parcels to Constable Kulbir Singh for depo accused namely Sher Singh, who had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender, a supplementary challan was presented against said Sher Singh and consequently fresh charges were framed against all the six accused on 18.02.2002 for offences under , to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Jaswant Singh was also charged for The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 22 PWs, the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to herein stated that he is a trained armourer and that on 9.08.2000 Inspector Ram Kumar had presented a country made pistol (12 bore) along with two live cartridges and that upon examining the same he had given his opinion that the pistol was in report Ex.PA/1 to this effect. UGC Mangat Singh is a formal witness who deposed that on 30.6.2000, SI Umed Singh entrusted three sealed envelopes containing special reports for their onward transmission to Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher police officials which he accordingly delivered to the authorities concerned on the same HC Dharam Pal tendered his affidavit Ex.PC in evidence wherein when he was posted as MHC at Police Station Civil Lines, SI Umed Singh had deposited two and that on 18.9.2000 he handed over the aforesaid parcels to Constable Kulbir Singh for depositing the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) same in FSL Madhuban and that as long as the said parcels remained in his custody the same were not tampered with. PW-4 Vikas Sahni who is an eye detail about the manner of occurrence case of prosecution. He specifically stated that Kimti Lal, Hanuman and Ram Pal caught hold of Virender Gaba (deceased) and inflicted injuries to him with the help of bottles on his head, eyes and temporal region. PW-5 Yogesh Gaba brother who was into dairy business and that on 18.6.2000 his brother had gone to Shifali Hotel and that he along with his unc accompanied present in the said hotel, a Tata Sierra came there. Three persons riding a (PW further stated that the 3 Pal. The three persons who had come on a scooter talked to the occupants of the Tata Sierra vehicle and entered into the said building and that their shirts told them to conduct a scuffle took place and the said persons gave slaps and fist blows to the hotel owner Vikas Sahni and went out. in tune with the case of prosecution as regards the aforesaid three persons having picked up soda bottles and having hurled the same towards the hotel and that when Virender Gaba tried to stop them, the said injuries to him on his head, eyes and temporal region with the bottles. (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 6 ) same in FSL Madhuban and that as long as the said parcels remained in his custody the same were not tampered with. Vikas Sahni who is an eye-witness of the occurrence stated in detail about the manner of occurrence case of prosecution. He specifically stated that Kimti Lal, Hanuman and Ram Pal caught hold of Virender Gaba (deceased) and inflicted injuries to him with the help of bottles on his head, eyes and temporal region. Yogesh Gaba stated that Virender Gaba (deceased) was his elder brother who was into dairy business and that on 18.6.2000 his brother had gone to Shifali Hotel, and that he along with his unc accompanied Virender Gaba to the said hotel. W present in the said hotel, a Tata Sierra came there. Three persons riding a LML Vespa scooter also came there and (PW-5) knew two of them namely Kimti Lal and Hanuman. He further stated that the 3rd person was referred to as Pal. The three persons who had come on a scooter talked to the occupants of the Tata Sierra vehicle and entered into the said building and occupied the chairs in the dining that two out of them i.e. Raju @ Ram Pal and Kimti Lal their shirts to which the hotel owner Vikas Sahni objected and told them to conduct themselves in a decent manner a scuffle took place and the said persons gave slaps and fist blows to the hotel owner Vikas Sahni and went out. in tune with the case of prosecution as regards the aforesaid three persons having picked up soda bottles and having hurled the same towards the hotel and that when Virender Gaba tried to stop them, the said three persons caught hold of Virende injuries to him on his head, eyes and temporal region with the bottles. He also stated that all the accused sat in the TATA Sierra same in FSL Madhuban and that as long as the said parcels remained in his custody the same were not tampered with. witness of the occurrence stated in detail about the manner of occurrence, broadly in tune with the case of prosecution. He specifically stated that Kimti Lal, Hanuman and Ram Pal caught hold of Virender Gaba (deceased) and inflicted injuries to him with the help of bottles on his head, Gaba (deceased) was his elder brother who was into dairy business and that on 18.6.2000 his Karnal to collect his payment and that he along with his uncle Vijay Sachdeva also to the said hotel. While they were present in the said hotel, a Tata Sierra came there. Three persons also came there and out of which he two of them namely Kimti Lal and Hanuman. He person was referred to as Raju @ Ram Pal. The three persons who had come on a scooter talked to the occupants of the Tata Sierra vehicle and entered into the said in the dining hall. He deposed two out of them i.e. Raju @ Ram Pal and Kimti Lal removed hotel owner Vikas Sahni objected and in a decent manner, upon which a scuffle took place and the said persons gave slaps and fist blows to the hotel owner Vikas Sahni and went out. PW-5 further stated in tune with the case of prosecution as regards the aforesaid three persons having picked up soda bottles and having hurled the same towards the hotel and that when Virender Gaba tried to stop them, persons caught hold of Virender Gaba and gave injuries to him on his head, eyes and temporal region with the He also stated that all the accused sat in the TATA Sierra VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) vehicle and attempted to run over the vehicle upon them and that Jaswant Singh, while brandishing a pistol th PW-6 Sand statement ( lodged. PW-7 Sushil B Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Karnal, he had medico legally examined V MLR. He proved the MLR as Ex.PG. PW-8 Vinod Kumar, Ahlmad, District Magistrate Ka sanction order Ex.PH passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal as regards prosecution of Jaswant Singh for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. PW-9 C.Vir Shakti Singh who had prepared the site plan proved the same PW-10 Smt. proved an attested copy (Ex.PK) of bail application which had been filed by Kimti Lal in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. PW-11 Dr. Sand mortem examination on the dead body of Virender Kumar (Gabha) on 30.06.2000 and proved Ex.PL. infection due to injuries sustained by the deceased which were sufficient PW-12 S.I entrusted with the task of getting the test identification parade conducted in District Jail, Karnal, but accused Dalbir participate in the test identification parade. (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 7 ) vehicle and attempted to run over the vehicle upon them and that Jaswant Singh, while brandishing a pistol th Sandip Arora who is the complainant stated in tune with statement (‘ruqa’) Ex.PF, on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged. Sushil Bathla stated that on 18.6.2000 while he was posted as Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Karnal, he had medico legally examined Virender Kumar and had MLR. He proved the MLR as Ex.PG. Vinod Kumar, Ahlmad, District Magistrate Ka sanction order Ex.PH passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal as regards prosecution of Jaswant Singh for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. C.Vir Shakti Singh who had prepared the site plan proved the same as Ex.PJ. Smt. Shashi Bhatia, Record Keeper, District Courts, Karnal proved an attested copy (Ex.PK) of bail application which had been filed by Kimti Lal in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. Dr. Sandeep Grewal stated that mortem examination on the dead body of Virender Kumar (Gabha) on 30.06.2000 and proved Ex.PL. PW-11 opined that the cause of death was superadded infection due to injuries sustained by the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. I. Kushal Singh stated that on 16. entrusted with the task of getting the test identification parade conducted in District Jail, Karnal, but accused Dalbir participate in the test identification parade. vehicle and attempted to run over the vehicle upon them and that Jaswant Singh, while brandishing a pistol threatened to kill them. p Arora who is the complainant stated in tune with his ) Ex.PF, on the basis of which FIR came to be stated that on 18.6.2000 while he was posted as Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Karnal, he had medico Kumar and had recorded the injuries in MLR. He proved the MLR as Ex.PG. Vinod Kumar, Ahlmad, District Magistrate Karnal proved the sanction order Ex.PH passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal as regards prosecution of Jaswant Singh for offence under Section C.Vir Shakti Singh who had prepared the site plan proved the Shashi Bhatia, Record Keeper, District Courts, Karnal proved an attested copy (Ex.PK) of bail application which had been filed by Kimti Lal in the Court of District and Sessions Grewal stated that she had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Virender Kumar (Gabha) on 30.06.2000 and proved the Post-Mortem Report as opined that the cause of death was superadded infection due to injuries sustained by the deceased which were to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Kushal Singh stated that on 16.07.2000 he had been entrusted with the task of getting the test identification parade conducted in District Jail, Karnal, but accused Dalbir refused to participate in the test identification parade. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) PW-13 S.I. Kumar on conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh in District Jail, Karnal, but participate in the test identification parade. PW-14 Bal Kishan, Clerk in the office of SDM Karnal record pertaining 2904 Kimti Lal. PW-15 Constable Kulbir Singh evidence deposing therein that two sealed parcels in FSL Madhuban, handed over to him by MHC Dharampal and tha his custody the same were not tampered with PW-16 SI Umed Singh stated that on telephonic message in the police station regarding admission of Virender Hospital, from where he came to know that referred to PGI, Chandigarh was present which formal FIR Ex.PF/2 with regard to the investigation conducted by him thereafter including visiting the pieces of glass and blood stained soil. He also stated that LML scooter which was found parked outside the hotel, into possession. He stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted in the matter while the matter remained entrusted to him. PW-17 SI declared a proclaimed offender surrend (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 8 ) S.I. Chatarbuj stated that he had been deputed by Inspector Ram Kumar on 11.07.2000 to get the test identification parade conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh in District Jail, Karnal, but when he went to the Jail, aforesaid Jaswant Singh refused to participate in the test identification parade. Bal Kishan, Clerk in the office of SDM Karnal record pertaining to scooter bearing registration No. 2904 as per which the scooter stood registered in the name of Kimti Lal. Constable Kulbir Singh tendered his evidence deposing therein that on 18.9.2000 he had deposited two sealed parcels in FSL Madhuban, handed over to him by MHC Dharampal and that as long as the said parcels remained in his custody the same were not tampered with SI Umed Singh stated that on telephonic message in the police station regarding admission of irender in the General hospital, Hospital, from where he came to know that referred to PGI, Chandigarh. However, was present and got his statementEx.PF which formal FIR Ex.PF/2 came to be lodged. He with regard to the investigation conducted by him thereafter including visiting the place of occurence pieces of glass and blood stained soil. He also stated that LML scooter which was found parked outside the hotel, into possession. He stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted in the matter while the matter remained entrusted to him. SI Ram Mehar stated that Sher Singh, who had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender surrend stated that he had been deputed by Inspector Ram 11.07.2000 to get the test identification parade conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh in District Jail, Karnal, when he went to the Jail, aforesaid Jaswant Singh refused to participate in the test identification parade. Bal Kishan, Clerk in the office of SDM Karnal, proved the scooter bearing registration No.HR-05H- stood registered in the name of tendered his affidavit is Ex.PD in on 18.9.2000 he had deposited two sealed parcels in FSL Madhuban, handed over to him by t as long as the said parcels remained in his custody the same were not tampered with. SI Umed Singh stated that on 18.06.2000, upon receipt of telephonic message in the police station regarding admission of hospital, Karnal, he proceeded to the Hospital, from where he came to know that the injured had been However, Sandeep (complainant) and got his statementEx.PF recorded on the basis of came to be lodged. He further stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him thereafter place of occurence, lifting of shattered pieces of glass and blood stained soil. He also stated that LML scooter which was found parked outside the hotel, was also taken into possession. He stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted in the matter while the matter remained stated that Sher Singh, who had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender surrendered before the Court of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on formally arrested him with the permission of the Court on 22.09.2001 supplementary challan ha PW-18 Ram Singh, Medical Record Technician, Central Registration Department, PGI, Chandigarh, produced the medical record pertaining to V him in PGI. PW-19 K.K.Rao, Superintendent of Police (Vigila taken over investigation of the case on regard to the proceedings conducted by him. PW-20 Hawa Singh, SDM, Ambala posted as Naib Tehsildar, Karnal presented before him by the police for getting test identification parade conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh, thereto refused to participate in the same. He further stated that simil was the position with regard to Dalbir Singh, who also refused to participate in the test identification parade. PW-21 Inspector over the investigation with regard to the investigation conducted by him. He stated that on course of which he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PEE regarding his having concealed a country alongwith 2 live cartridges in the rear side of rice sheller of Jai Parkash Gupta, MLA. disclosure statement, Jaswant Singh nominated place and got the live cartridges and pisto which w (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 9 ) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on formally arrested him with the permission of the Court on 22.09.2001 and that upon completion of investigation, a supplementary challan had been filed against said Ram Singh, Medical Record Technician, Central Registration Department, PGI, Chandigarh, produced the medical record pertaining to Virender Kumar with regard to treatment given to him in PGI. K.K.Rao, Superintendent of Police (Vigila taken over investigation of the case on regard to the proceedings conducted by him. Hawa Singh, SDM, Ambala, stated that on posted as Naib Tehsildar, Karnal presented before him by the police for getting test identification parade conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh, thereto he went to the District Jail, Karnal, but Jaswant Singh refused to participate in the same. He further stated that simil was the position with regard to Dalbir Singh, who also refused to participate in the test identification parade. Inspector Ram Kumar stated that on over the investigation of the case from DSP K.K.Rao with regard to the investigation conducted by him. He stated that on 08.08.2000, Jaswant Singh was interrogated by him during the course of which he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PEE regarding his having concealed a country alongwith 2 live cartridges in the rear side of rice sheller of Jai Parkash Gupta, MLA. PW-21 further stated that pursuant to said disclosure statement, Jaswant Singh nominated place and got the live cartridges and pisto which were taken into possession and were sealed and were later Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on 17.09.2001 and that he had formally arrested him with the permission of the Court on and that upon completion of investigation, a been filed against said Sher Singh. Ram Singh, Medical Record Technician, Central Registration Department, PGI, Chandigarh, produced the medical record Kumar with regard to treatment given to K.K.Rao, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Hisar, who had taken over investigation of the case on 01.07.2000, stated with regard to the proceedings conducted by him. , stated that on 11.07.2000, he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Karnal when an application was presented before him by the police for getting test identification parade conducted with regard to Jaswant Singh, and pursuant he went to the District Jail, Karnal, but Jaswant Singh refused to participate in the same. He further stated that similar was the position with regard to Dalbir Singh, who also refused to participate in the test identification parade. stated that on 09.07.2000 he had taken from DSP K.K.Rao. He stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him. He stated that , Jaswant Singh was interrogated by him during the course of which he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PEE regarding his having concealed a country-made pistol 12 bore alongwith 2 live cartridges in the rear side of rice sheller of Jai further stated that pursuant to said disclosure statement, Jaswant Singh led the police party to the nominated place and got the live cartridges and pistol recovered, taken into possession and were sealed and were later VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) deposited in the Malkhana. investigation, he sent the file to Civil Lines, Karnal for preparation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW-22 Dr. PGI on 19. that the patient was in unconscious state and head revealed presence of hem deposed that over his head, right his head. 7. Upon closure accused were case of prosecution however, examined was his brother and enquired about Dalbir his house and took away family photographs after he (DW towards the photograph of Dalbir Singh. 15.07.2000 when he was passing through the street in front of the house of Dalbir Singh, he noticed that 3 stated that Dalbir Singh’s mother away photographs of Dalbir Singh and also Bijender Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food & Civil Supply produced the record pertaining to issuance of a license in favour of Ram Parkash for public distribution of grains etc. He stated that as per rule the depot holder has to run a depot himself and that Ram Parkash had (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 10 ) deposited in the Malkhana. He stated that upon completion of investigation, he sent the file to Civil Lines, Karnal for preparation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Dr. Sanjay Bansal stated that Virender Kumar was admitted in PGI on 19.06.2000 and that he was examined by Dr. Phani and that the patient was in unconscious state and head revealed presence of hematoma in deposed that the injured was having multiple incised wounds over his head, right eyelid and lacerated wound over left side of his head. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, ere recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. case of prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. examined DW-1 Rajinder Singh, who stated that Dalbir Singh was his brother-in-law and that the police came to his house in July, 2000 and enquired about Dalbir Singh. He further stated that the police his house and took away family photographs after he (DW towards the photograph of Dalbir Singh. DW 15.07.2000 when he was passing through the street in front of the house of Dalbir Singh, he noticed that 3-4 persons were standing there. He stated that Dalbir Singh’s mother informed him that the police had taken away photographs of Dalbir Singh and also Bijender Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food & Civil Supply produced the record pertaining to issuance of a license in favour of Ram for public distribution of grains etc. He stated that as per rule depot holder has to run a depot himself and that Ram Parkash had He stated that upon completion of investigation, he sent the file to Civil Lines, Karnal for preparation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Sanjay Bansal stated that Virender Kumar was admitted in 6.2000 and that he was examined by Dr. Phani and that the patient was in unconscious state and that CT Scan of his toma in the brain. He further was having multiple incised wounds cerated wound over left side of of the prosecution evidence, when the statements of the recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the and pleaded false implication. The accused, Rajinder Singh, who stated that Dalbir Singh law and that the police came to his house in July, 2000 Singh. He further stated that the police entered his house and took away family photographs after he (DW-1) pointed DW-2 Sunil Mann stated that on 15.07.2000 when he was passing through the street in front of the house 4 persons were standing there. He informed him that the police had taken his voter identity card. DW-3 Bijender Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food & Civil Supply Department, Karnal produced the record pertaining to issuance of a license in favour of Ram for public distribution of grains etc. He stated that as per rules, depot holder has to run a depot himself and that Ram Parkash had VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) himself been Jain, Finger Print and Document Expert, Jind the thumb impression of Kimti Lal as exist 23.06.2000 impressions as existing on the P.K.Bhandari do not match with each other. He prov DW-5 Ram Pal stated that a letter dated then Branch Manager of Moonak Branch was received in the head office on 20.07.2000. He proved the copy of said letter as Ex.DM. Narain stated that Sher Singh is his son and that he Villages Gagsina Rasalva, the land of his son is in village Gagsin Singh had raised a loan from mortgaging his land situated in Village Gagsina. He stated that police had visited his house on Sher Singh and tha office of Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. 18.07.2000 while he was posted as Loan Clerk Central Cooperative Bank, Moonak Branch the accounts of Sher Singh and that he expressed his inability to furnish information on account of the rules of the bank and had asked the police officials to get the permission from the head office (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 11 ) been running the depot allotted to him. Jain, Finger Print and Document Expert, Jind the thumb impression of Kimti Lal as exist (Ex.DH) and had compared the same with the thumb impressions as existing on the Vakalatnama P.K.Bhandari, Advocate and had opined that the said thumb impressions do not match with each other. He proved his report Ex.DL in this regard. Ram Pal, Senior Accountant, Central Cooperative Bank, Karnal stated that a letter dated 19.07.2000 written by Ranbir Singh Mann, the then Branch Manager of Moonak Branch was received in the head office 20.07.2000. He proved the copy of said letter as Ex.DM. Narain stated that Sher Singh is his son and that he Villages Gagsina and Rasalva and that while he resides in Village Rasalva, the land of his son is in village Gagsin Singh had raised a loan from Central Cooperative Bank, Moonak by mortgaging his land situated in Village Gagsina. He stated that police had visited his house on 18.07.2000 and taken away bank pass Sher Singh and that on the next day, he had made an oral complaint in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. DW 18.07.2000 while he was posted as Loan Clerk Central Cooperative Bank, Moonak Branch, a police party had visited the bank and enquired about the accounts of Sher Singh and that he expressed his inability to furnish information on account of the rules of the bank and had asked the police officials to get the permission from the head office running the depot allotted to him. DW-4 Yashpal Chand Jain, Finger Print and Document Expert, Jind stated that he had examined the thumb impression of Kimti Lal as existing on bail application dated and had compared the same with the thumb Vakalatnama in favour of Shri , Advocate and had opined that the said thumb impressions ed his report Ex.DL in this regard. , Senior Accountant, Central Cooperative Bank, Karnal written by Ranbir Singh Mann, the then Branch Manager of Moonak Branch was received in the head office 20.07.2000. He proved the copy of said letter as Ex.DM. DW-6 Ram Narain stated that Sher Singh is his son and that he (DW-6) owned land in and Rasalva and that while he resides in Village Rasalva, the land of his son is in village Gagsina. He stated that Sher Central Cooperative Bank, Moonak by mortgaging his land situated in Village Gagsina. He stated that police had and taken away bank pass-book of his son t on the next day, he had made an oral complaint in the DW-7 Dharam Pal stated that on 18.07.2000 while he was posted as Loan Clerk Central Cooperative Bank, , a police party had visited the bank and enquired about the accounts of Sher Singh and that he expressed his inability to furnish information on account of the rules of the bank and had asked the police officials to get the permission from the head office. He further stated that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) the police officials also took away the photograph of Sher Singh, which was affixed on his loan account. 8. The learned trial Court, upon that the prosecution had accordingly, is being impugned in the instant appeals. accused/appellant No.3 expired and 17.12.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant prosecution (i) that even if all the allegations are taken to be correct, the appellants cannot be held responsible admittedly died after about 12 days of the occurrence some infection in the body negligence on the part of the Doctors, which leading report, the cause of death has been attributed to “ infection” and under these circumstances, give appellants did not inflict injuries with any sharp edged weapon or with any fire arm, the death cannot be said to be a natural consequence of the injuries allegedly caused by the accused (ii) that in any case, the appellants cannot be attributed any for causing death inasmuch as admittedly it is a case where there was no (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 12 ) the police officials also threatened the Manager Ranbir Singh and took away the photograph of Sher Singh, which was affixed on his loan The learned trial Court, upon marshalling hat the prosecution had been successful accordingly, convicted the accused vide judgement dated 12.6.2004 which is being impugned in the instant appeals. It may here be mentioned that accused/appellant No.3 – Sher Singh in CRA and proceedings qua him stand abated . Learned counsel for the appellants, while assa prosecution, broadly raised the following submissions: hat even if all the allegations are taken to be correct, the appellants cannot be held responsible for death of V admittedly died after about 12 days of the occurrence some infection in the body and apparently it was on negligence on the part of the Doctors, which ing to his death. It has been submitted that in the post report, the cause of death has been attributed to “ infection” and under these circumstances, give appellants did not inflict injuries with any sharp edged weapon or with any fire arm, the death cannot be said to be a natural consequence of the injuries allegedly caused by the accused hat in any case, the appellants cannot be attributed any causing death inasmuch as admittedly it is a case where there was no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused and that threatened the Manager Ranbir Singh and forcibly took away the photograph of Sher Singh, which was affixed on his loan marshalling the evidence on record, held successful in establishing its case and vide judgement dated 12.6.2004 which It may here be mentioned that Singh in CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 has stand abated vide order dated while assailing the case of broadly raised the following submissions: hat even if all the allegations are taken to be correct, the appellants for death of Virender Gaba, as he had admittedly died after about 12 days of the occurrence on account of and apparently it was on account of negligence on the part of the Doctors, which resulted in infection It has been submitted that in the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been attributed to “superadded infection” and under these circumstances, given the fact that the appellants did not inflict injuries with any sharp edged weapon or with any fire arm, the death cannot be said to be a natural consequence of the injuries allegedly caused by the accused; hat in any case, the appellants cannot be attributed any mens rea causing death inasmuch as admittedly it is a case where there enmity between the deceased and the accused and that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) some dispute had allegedly taken place two of the accused having taken off their shirts in a hotel dining hall; (iii) that there is no proper identification of the accused have been identified by the witnesses (iv) that an attempt has been m number of persons as accused three persons had hurled soda water bottles police has come with a false allegation to the effect that of their other co companions with a Tata evidence to than the deceased has been found to be injured in the 10. It has, thus, been submitted that the consequently the appellants be them. 11. Opposing the appeals, the l regard to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the complainant question and whose testimony has remained unimpeached the fact that medical e there is no room to doubt the complicity of the appellants. 12. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record case. (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 13 ) some dispute had allegedly taken place two of the accused having taken off their shirts in a hotel dining hat there is no proper identification of the accused have been identified by the witnesses hat an attempt has been made by the police to number of persons as accused and that apart from the allegation that three persons had hurled soda water bottles police has come with a false allegation to the effect that of their other co-accused tried to run over the complainant and his companions with a Tata Sierra vehicle evidence to corroborate the said fact nor any other person other than the deceased has been found to be injured in the It has, thus, been submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and consequently the appellants be acquitted of Opposing the appeals, the learned State counsel regard to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the complainant (Sandip Arora) is an eye-witness of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained unimpeached the fact that medical evidence fully corroborates the case of prosecution, there is no room to doubt the complicity of the appellants. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record some dispute had allegedly taken place at the spot on account of two of the accused having taken off their shirts in a hotel dining hat there is no proper identification of the accused some of whom have been identified by the witnesses for the first time in the Court; ade by the police to rope in a large and that apart from the allegation that three persons had hurled soda water bottles at the deceased, the police has come with a false allegation to the effect that another 3 accused tried to run over the complainant and his vehicle though neither there is any the said fact nor any other person other than the deceased has been found to be injured in the incident. impugned judgment be set aside and acquitted of all the charges framed against earned State counsel submitted that having regard to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the witness of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained unimpeached coupled with vidence fully corroborates the case of prosecution, there is no room to doubt the complicity of the appellants. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) 13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased V and the cause of his death place on 18.06.2000, V taken to General Hospital, Karnal where he was medically examined by Dr. Shushil B PW-7 Dr. Sushil B Virender Kumar as under 14. A perusal of the aforesaid sustained as many as 4 injuries on eye. Since Virender Kumar could not survive, his dead body was subjected to post Dr. Sandee wherein she recorded the injuries found on the dead body of Virender Gaba as under: (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 14 ) Before proceeding further, it is apposite to first of all refer to the medical as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased V and the cause of his death. Immediately after the 18.06.2000, Virender Kumar, who had been badly injured, was taken to General Hospital, Karnal where he was medically examined by Dr. Shushil Bathla, who has been examined by the prosecution as PW 7 Dr. Sushil Bathla described the injuries found on t Virender Kumar as under: “1. Incised wound 5cmx3/4 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region of the skull. Bleeding was present. The wound was 7 cm away from the upper pole of right ear. Advised x-ray skull. 2. Incised wound 3cmx ¾ bleeding was present. X-R 3. Incised wound 1cmx ½ x ½ 4. A lacerated wound 6cm parieto occipital region of the skull. Bleeding was present. Advised X-Ray skull.” A perusal of the aforesaid injuries indicates that Virender Kumar had sustained as many as 4 injuries on various parts of eye. Since Virender Kumar could not survive, his dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination, which was conducted by PW eep Grewal, who proved the post he recorded the injuries found on the dead body of Virender Gaba as under: Before proceeding further, it is apposite to first of all refer to the medical as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased Virender Gaba Immediately after the occurrence had taken Kumar, who had been badly injured, was taken to General Hospital, Karnal where he was medically examined by , who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7. described the injuries found on the person of Incised wound 5cmx3/4 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region of the skull. Bleeding was present. The wound was 7 cm away from the upper pole of right ear. ¾ x ½ cm on the right eyebrow Ray was advised. ½ x ½ cm on the right upper eye lid. x 1cm x bone deep on the left parieto occipital region of the skull. Bleeding was present. injuries indicates that Virender Kumar had various parts of head and on his right eye. Since Virender Kumar could not survive, his dead body was mortem examination, which was conducted by PW-11 , who proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PL, he recorded the injuries found on the dead body of Virender VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 15. PW-11 opined that the ca injuries sustained by the deceased ordinary course of nature stated as under: 16. Though learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the death was not a natural outcome of the injuries caused by the accused, but was on account of on account of negligence of the Doctors, but having regard it is a case where the deceased died within about 12 days of occurrence (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 15 ) There was U shaped stitched wound st mandibular form to right frontal bone after encircling right temporal bone around 24 cm in length. Multiple brown scab formation over ventral aspect of right hand. Brown scar formation about 0.5cmx1.5cm over the interior aspect of right leg. Stitched wound over left eye brow. There were two stitches. Wound over left occipital region above 2cmx0.5cm. Traechostomy had been done. Pus oozes out of the surgical traechstomy wound.” opined that the cause of death was superadded infection due to the injuries sustained by the deceased which were enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature. During the course of cross stated as under: “ ………..the pus formation as found in the surgical wounds as also in the lungs. The pus could be formed because of surgical wounds or because of other injuries i.e. any external injury. It is correct that by analysis of the pus it could be found as to what kind of bacteria was there in the pus. This could be done by culture of the pus. Some of the bacterias are present in the orifices of the body. Bacteria is present everywhere. It could attack in the hospital as well. Voluntee of the body of the patient also, the patient may not be able fight back the bacterial attack. …… ….. …..” Though learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the death was not a natural outcome of the injuries caused by the accused, but on account of subsequent infection which on account of negligence of the Doctors, but having regard it is a case where the deceased died within about 12 days of occurrence There was U shaped stitched wound started from right mandibular form to right frontal bone after encircling right temporal bone around 24 cm in length. Multiple brown scab formation over ventral aspect of right hand. Brown scar formation about 0.5cmx1.5cm over the interior Stitched wound over left eye brow. There were two stitches. Wound over left occipital region above 2cmx0.5cm. Traechostomy had been done. Pus oozes out of the surgical superadded infection due to the which were enough to cause death in . During the course of cross-examination, she ………..the pus formation as found in the surgical wounds as in the lungs. The pus could be formed because of surgical wounds or because of other injuries i.e. any external injury. It is correct that by analysis of the pus it could be found as to what kind of bacteria was there in the pus. This could be done by the culture of the pus. Some of the bacterias are present in the orifices of the body. Bacteria is present everywhere. It could the hospital as well. Volunteered that due to weakness of the body of the patient also, the patient may not be able to …… ….. …..” Though learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the death was not a natural outcome of the injuries caused by the accused, but infection which had developed in the body on account of negligence of the Doctors, but having regard to the fact that it is a case where the deceased died within about 12 days of occurrence VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for the sustained by him the death was not a natural consequence of the injuries is unsustainable inasmuch as there al wound as the f prone to catch infections 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1996) 8 SCC 51 the injuries and the secondary effect of the injuries. said case, was hit on his head thrice and accused had also hit was taken to the hospital. The deceased died several days later, while in the hospital. The do said case was as follows: “ 18. The trial Cou appeal, the High Court converted the offence of murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted the a Section 304 Part II Court held as follows: “3. On the other hand he contended that w it cannot be referable to the cause of the death in the ordinary course of (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 16 ) while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for the by him, the plea raised on behalf of the accused/appellants that the death was not a natural consequence of the injuries is unsustainable inasmuch as there always is a chance of infection the flesh underlying the skin or prone to catch infections Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Pala & others reported in (1996) 8 SCC 51, discussed the difference between the primary effect of the injuries and the secondary effect of the injuries. said case, was hit on his head thrice and accused had also hit him thrice on his chest and abdomen. The deceased was taken to the hospital. The deceased died several days later, while in the hospital. The doctor's opinion in respect of the cause of death in the said case was as follows: Cause of the death was due to septicaemia, which resulted as a result of the head injury and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The trial Court had convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court converted the offence of murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted the a Section 304 Part II of IPC. In the further appeal, the Hon'ble Court held as follows: On the other hand he contended that w it cannot be referable to the cause of the death in the ordinary course of while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for the injuries the plea raised on behalf of the accused/appellants that the death was not a natural consequence of the injuries is unsustainable a chance of infection in case of an incised or the muscle when exposed is State of Haryana Vs. Pala & others reported in , discussed the difference between the primary effect of the injuries and the secondary effect of the injuries. The deceased, in the said case, was hit on his head thrice and then he fell down. Another him thrice on his chest and abdomen. The deceased was taken to the hospital. The deceased died several days later, while in ctor's opinion in respect of the cause of death in the Cause of the death was due to septicaemia, which resulted as a result of the head injury and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.” rt had convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court converted the offence of murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted the accused under f IPC. In the further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme On the other hand he contended that when death was due to septicemia, it cannot be referable to the cause of the death in the ordinary course of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) nature due to anti murder has not been made out. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on page 222. It is stated therein that "Danger to life depends, primarily, on the amount of haemorrhage, on the organ wound shock, secondarily, on secondary haemorrhage, on the occurrence of septicaemia, erysipelas, tetanus, or other complications. In answering the question whether a wound is dangerous to life, the danger must be assessed on the probabl possibilities as the occurrence of tetanus or septicaemia, later on, are not to be taken into consideration." Though the learned counsel had not read the later part of the opinion, the medical evidence on record do cl establish that septicaemia is not the primary cause and the death was due to injuries caused to the deceased and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Septicaemia would, therefore, not be taken into account.” 19. From the above judgment, it is crystal clear that it is not as though in every case where the death is due to Septicemia resulting on account of the injuries, the offence would fall outside the scope of culpable homicide. Supreme Court 2328 burn injuries resulting in medical complications, observed that the fact that the deceased lingered for about 12 days would not show that the death was not the direct result of the act of the accused in throwing a on her. It was further held that the fact that the deceased developed symptoms of malaena and respiratory failure and they also contributed to her death could not in any way affect the conclusion that the injuries caused by the acid burns were the dire (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 17 ) nature due to anti-mortem injuries and that, therefore, the offence of der has not been made out. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence page 222. It is stated therein that "Danger to life depends, primarily, on the amount of haemorrhage, on the organ wound shock, secondarily, on secondary haemorrhage, on the occurrence of septicaemia, erysipelas, tetanus, or other complications. In answering the question whether a wound is dangerous to life, the danger must be assessed on the probable primary effects of the injury : Such possibilities as the occurrence of tetanus or septicaemia, later on, are not to be taken into consideration." Though the learned counsel had not read the later part of the opinion, the medical evidence on record do cl establish that septicaemia is not the primary cause and the death was due to injuries caused to the deceased and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Septicaemia would, therefore, not be taken into account.” the above judgment, it is crystal clear that it is not as though in every case where the death is due to Septicemia resulting on account of the injuries, the offence would fall outside the scope of culpable homicide. In Sudershan Kumar V Supreme Court 2328, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case of death by acid burn injuries resulting in medical complications, observed that the fact that the deceased lingered for about 12 days would not show that the death was not the direct result of the act of the accused in throwing a on her. It was further held that the fact that the deceased developed symptoms of malaena and respiratory failure and they also contributed to her death could not in any way affect the conclusion that the injuries caused by the acid burns were the direct cause of her death. In the said mortem injuries and that, therefore, the offence of der has not been made out. In support thereof, he sought to place Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence for India (Tenth Edition) at page 222. It is stated therein that "Danger to life depends, primarily, on the amount of haemorrhage, on the organ wounded, and on the extent of shock, secondarily, on secondary haemorrhage, on the occurrence of septicaemia, erysipelas, tetanus, or other complications. In answering the question whether a wound is dangerous to life, the danger must be e primary effects of the injury : Such possibilities as the occurrence of tetanus or septicaemia, later on, are not to be taken into consideration." Though the learned counsel had not read the later part of the opinion, the medical evidence on record do clearly establish that septicaemia is not the primary cause and the death was due to injuries caused to the deceased and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Septicaemia would, therefore, not the above judgment, it is crystal clear that it is not as though in every case where the death is due to Septicemia resulting on account of the injuries, the offence would fall outside the scope of murder or Vs. State of De1hi, AIR 1974 Supreme Court, in a case of death by acid burn injuries resulting in medical complications, observed that the fact that the deceased lingered for about 12 days would not show that the death was not the direct result of the act of the accused in throwing acid on her. It was further held that the fact that the deceased developed symptoms of malaena and respiratory failure and they also contributed to her death could not in any way affect the conclusion that the injuries ct cause of her death. In the said VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) case, the conviction of accused for offence under section 302 IPC was maintained. 20. The contention of the counsel that death was on account of complications due to medical negligence and that with proper medical care could have survived and therefore Section 302 IPC is not attracted clearly overlooks Exception 2 to Section 299 IPC, which reads as follows: "Explanation 2 Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.” 21. When the medical evidence led in the instant case is examined on the touchstone of the principles of law h inevitable result is that death was direct result of injuries inflicted to deceased. As already discussed above, sustained 4 injuries including three incise wounds on various parts of head and on his right eye. The death took place within about 12 days of occurrence while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for the injuries sustained by him. PW cause of death was superadded infection due the deceased which were enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was not properly treated before his death. behalf of the a (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 18 ) case, the conviction of accused for offence under section 302 IPC was maintained. The contention of the counsel that death was on account of complications due to medical negligence and that with proper medical care could have survived and therefore Section 302 IPC is not attracted clearly overlooks Exception 2 to Section 299 IPC, which reads as follows: "Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.” When the medical evidence led in the instant case is examined on the touchstone of the principles of law highlighted in cited judgments, the inevitable result is that death was direct result of injuries inflicted to deceased. As already discussed above, the deceased was found to have sustained 4 injuries including three incise wounds on various parts of head nd on his right eye. The death took place within about 12 days of occurrence while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for the injuries sustained by him. PW-11 Dr. Sandeep Grewal opined that the cause of death was superadded infection due the deceased which were enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was not properly treated before his death. As such, the contention put behalf of the appellants that the cause of death was on account of the case, the conviction of accused for offence under section 302 IPC was The contention of the counsel that death was on account of complications due to medical negligence and that with proper medical care the deceased could have survived and therefore Section 302 IPC is not attracted clearly overlooks Exception 2 to Section 299 IPC, which reads as follows: Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes shall be deemed to have caused the death although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment When the medical evidence led in the instant case is examined on the ighlighted in cited judgments, the inevitable result is that death was direct result of injuries inflicted to the deceased was found to have sustained 4 injuries including three incise wounds on various parts of head nd on his right eye. The death took place within about 12 days of occurrence while he was still undergoing medical treatment in the PGI for 11 Dr. Sandeep Grewal opined that the cause of death was superadded infection due to the injuries sustained by the deceased which were enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was not As such, the contention put-forth on hat the cause of death was on account of the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) negligence of the d immediate and natural result of the injuries inflicted to deceased wherein infection had also set in. 22. As regards the evidence to establish the occurrence, (complainant) while in the witness allegations as got recorded by him in his statement Ex.PF on the basis of which FIR Ex.PF/2 came to be lodged. when he was present at in-law Vikas Sahni who was running a d Vijay Sachdeva and his brother Yogesh Gaba. He stated that three persons had come there on a scooter i.e. person and entered into the hotel and sat on the chairs and that thereafter Raju and the unknown person took off their shirts law Vikas Sahni objected, as some female guests were hotel. He stated that the said persons however started complainant’s brother slaps and then went across the road to a shop from where they picked up bottles of soda and threw the same at the complainant and others. when Virender Gaba (deceased) moved forward to stop the persons caught hold of Virender Gaba and gave blows with soda bottles on his head, eye and temporal region as a result of which Virender Gaba fell down. He further stated that (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 19 ) negligence of the doctors is not acceptable. immediate and natural result of the injuries inflicted to deceased wherein infection had also set in. As regards the evidence to establish the occurrence, (complainant) while in the witness-box stated absolutely in tune with the allegations as got recorded by him in his statement Ex.PF on the basis of which FIR Ex.PF/2 came to be lodged. He stated that on when he was present at Shifali Hotel, where he was working, his brother law Vikas Sahni was also present there. He stated that Virender Gaba, who was running a dairy, came there accompanied by his Sachdeva and his brother Yogesh Gaba. He stated that three persons had come there on a scooter i.e. Raju, Hanuman and person and entered into the hotel and sat on the chairs and that thereafter Raju and the unknown person took off their shirts law Vikas Sahni objected, as some female guests were hotel. He stated that the said persons however started complainant’s brother-in-law Vikas Sahni and gave him fist blows and slaps and then went out of the hotel. He stated that the said persons went across the road to a shop from where they picked up bottles of soda and threw the same at the complainant and others. when Virender Gaba (deceased) moved forward to stop the persons caught hold of Virender Gaba and gave blows with soda bottles on his head, eye and temporal region as a result of which Virender Gaba fell down. He further stated that there were three more persons, who had octors is not acceptable. Rather, the death was immediate and natural result of the injuries inflicted to deceased wherein As regards the evidence to establish the occurrence, PW-6 Sandip Arora box stated absolutely in tune with the allegations as got recorded by him in his statement Ex.PF on the basis of He stated that on 18.06.2000, Shifali Hotel, where he was working, his brother- was also present there. He stated that Virender Gaba, , came there accompanied by his Fuffad (uncle) Sachdeva and his brother Yogesh Gaba. He stated that three Raju, Hanuman and an unknown person and entered into the hotel and sat on the chairs and that thereafter Raju and the unknown person took off their shirts to which his brother-in- law Vikas Sahni objected, as some female guests were also there in the hotel. He stated that the said persons however started arguing with the law Vikas Sahni and gave him fist blows and out of the hotel. He stated that the said persons went across the road to a shop from where they picked up bottles of soda and threw the same at the complainant and others. PW-6 further stated that when Virender Gaba (deceased) moved forward to stop them, the said persons caught hold of Virender Gaba and gave blows with soda bottles on his head, eye and temporal region as a result of which Virender Gaba were three more persons, who had VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) come in a Tata Sierra vehicl sat in the said vehicle and they made an attempt to run over the vehicle on the complainant and others. nothing could be elicited so as to doubt his credibility in a 23. The aforesaid statement of PW corroborated by the testimony of PW the complainant and who was had taken place. PW prosecution version. Though the name of Yogesh Gaba mention in the FIR, but this Court finds that even if for the sake of arguments, his testimony is not taken into account, the testimony of complainant (PW testimony of PW regards the manner in which three accused, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram Pal and Kimti Lal had inflicted injuries to the deceased. 24. Having regard to the aforesaid consistent testimonies, this Court has no hesitation in aforesaid three persons, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram had inflicted injuries which ultimately led to his death. 25. As far as role of three other accused, namely, and Sher Singh come in a Tata Sierra vehicle (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 20 ) come in a Tata Sierra vehicle and that the aforesaid three assailants also sat in the said vehicle and they made an attempt to run over the vehicle on the complainant and others. Despite lengthy cross nothing could be elicited so as to doubt his credibility in a The aforesaid statement of PW-6 Sandip Arora (complainant) corroborated by the testimony of PW-4 Vikas Sahni i.e. brother the complainant and who was running Shifali Hotel where the occurrence had taken place. PW-5 Yogesh Gaba has also stated in support of the prosecution version. Though the name of Yogesh Gaba mention in the FIR, but this Court finds that even if for the sake of arguments, his testimony is not taken into account, the testimony of complainant (PW-6 Sandip Arora) finds ample corroboration from the testimony of PW-4 Vikas Sahni, who have both stated consistently as regards the manner in which three accused, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram al and Kimti Lal had inflicted injuries to the deceased. regard to the aforesaid consistent testimonies, this Court has no ation in affirming the findings of the trial Court to the effect that the aforesaid three persons, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram had inflicted injuries to deceased with the help of bot ultimately led to his death. As far as role of three other accused, namely, and Sher Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution come in a Tata Sierra vehicle and that after the e and that the aforesaid three assailants also sat in the said vehicle and they made an attempt to run over the vehicle on Despite lengthy cross-examination of PW-6, nothing could be elicited so as to doubt his credibility in any manner. 6 Sandip Arora (complainant) is Vikas Sahni i.e. brother-in-law of Shifali Hotel where the occurrence has also stated in support of the prosecution version. Though the name of Yogesh Gaba does not find mention in the FIR, but this Court finds that even if for the sake of arguments, his testimony is not taken into account, the testimony of finds ample corroboration from the 4 Vikas Sahni, who have both stated consistently as regards the manner in which three accused, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram al and Kimti Lal had inflicted injuries to the deceased. regard to the aforesaid consistent testimonies, this Court has no affirming the findings of the trial Court to the effect that the aforesaid three persons, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram Pal and Kimti Lal the help of bottles of soda water As far as role of three other accused, namely, Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh , the case of the prosecution is that they had after the three assailants, namely, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) Ram Parkash, Ram they also sat in the vehicle and they all the complainant and others. However, nothing on record as to who was driving the vehicle in question, it is a case where none from the complainant side has sustained any injury on account of alleged attempt made by the accused to run over the vehicle over the complainant and others complainant PW safety and avoided being run over by the speeding vehicle but the fact that Virender who had been rendered immobile on account of injuries inflicted to him, was also not found to have been run over by the vehicle creates a doubt as regards the said part of prosecution story. 26. Admittedly, the other three persons i.e. Sher Singh who had thrown soda bottles they can neither be attributed is there any evidence to show that they shared any kind of common intention with deceased or to cause his death or to cause injury to the complainant or to anybody else. Under Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh for offence under Section 148 IPC or Section 307 IPC or Section 302 IPC. Their conviction for offence under Section unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 21 ) Ram Parkash, Ram Pal and Kimti Lal had inflicted injuries to deceased, they also sat in the vehicle and they all tried to run over their vehicle over the complainant and others. However, apart from the fact tha nothing on record as to who was driving the vehicle in question, it is a case where none from the complainant side has sustained any injury on account of alleged attempt made by the accused to run over the vehicle over the complainant and others. While it could be expected that the complainant PW-6 and PW-5 Yogesh Gaba could have quickly moved to safety and avoided being run over by the speeding vehicle but the fact that Virender who had been rendered immobile on account of injuries inflicted him, was also not found to have been run over by the vehicle creates a doubt as regards the said part of prosecution story. Admittedly, the other three persons i.e. Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and were neither present inside the hotel nor were amongst those, who had thrown soda bottles on the deceased. Under these circumstances, they can neither be attributed with any overt act in causing any injury nor is there any evidence to show that they shared any kind of common ion with the other three accused for inflicting injuries to the deceased or to cause his death or to cause injury to the complainant or to anybody else. Under these circumstances, the said three Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh for offence under Section 148 IPC or Section 307 IPC or Section 302 IPC. Their conviction for offence under Section unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. had inflicted injuries to deceased, tried to run over their vehicle over apart from the fact that there is nothing on record as to who was driving the vehicle in question, it is a case where none from the complainant side has sustained any injury on account of alleged attempt made by the accused to run over the vehicle While it could be expected that the Yogesh Gaba could have quickly moved to safety and avoided being run over by the speeding vehicle but the fact that Virender who had been rendered immobile on account of injuries inflicted him, was also not found to have been run over by the vehicle creates a doubt as regards the said part of prosecution story. Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and the hotel nor were amongst those, on the deceased. Under these circumstances, any overt act in causing any injury nor is there any evidence to show that they shared any kind of common the other three accused for inflicting injuries to the deceased or to cause his death or to cause injury to the complainant or to these circumstances, the said three persons i.e. Jaswant Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sher Singh cannot be held guilty either for offence under Section 148 IPC or Section 307 IPC or Section 302 IPC. Their conviction for offence under Section 307 IPC, as such, is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. Similarly, the other three for offence under Section 148 IPC or Section 307 IPC or Section 302 IPC. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) accused namely Ram Pal, Ram Parkash and Kimti Lal also des acquittal as far as offences under section 148 and 307 IPC are concerned. For the same reasoning, conviction of offence under Section 506 IPC also cannot be mainta acquittal for the said offence as well. 27. Coming back to the case of three Ram Pal, Ram Parkash and Kimti Lal at the deceased, the moot question before th account of the fact that the deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries caused by aforesaid three persons offence under Section 302 IPC is made out or as to whether it is a case where any lesser offence in terms of provisions of Sect said question, it is apposite to bear in mind the provisions of section 300 IPC which reads as under: 300. Murder. murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly. - knows to b or – 3rdly. - the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to ca 4thly. - dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1.- murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 22 ) accused namely Ram Pal, Ram Parkash and Kimti Lal also des acquittal as far as offences under section 148 and 307 IPC are concerned. For the same reasoning, conviction of appellant offence under Section 506 IPC also cannot be mainta acquittal for the said offence as well. Coming back to the case of three main assailants i.e. appellants Ram Pal, Ram Parkash and Kimti Lal, who had hurled soda water bottles at the deceased, the moot question before th account of the fact that the deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries caused by aforesaid three persons offence under Section 302 IPC is made out or as to whether it is a case where any lesser offence in terms of s of Section 304 IPC would be made out. While considering the said question, it is apposite to bear in mind the provisions of section 300 IPC which reads as under: 300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – - It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the isk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. - When culpable homicide is not murder. murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave accused namely Ram Pal, Ram Parkash and Kimti Lal also deserve acquittal as far as offences under section 148 and 307 IPC are concerned. appellant – Jaswant Singh for offence under Section 506 IPC also cannot be maintained and he deserves main assailants i.e. appellants namely, , who had hurled soda water bottles at the deceased, the moot question before this Court is as to whether on account of the fact that the deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries caused by aforesaid three persons offence under Section 302 IPC is made out or as to whether it is a case where any lesser offence in terms of ion 304 IPC would be made out. While considering the said question, it is apposite to bear in mind the provisions of section 300 Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender e likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the isk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. When culpable homicide is not murder. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The a Exception 2. - faith power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in purpose of such defence. Exception 3. - or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent 28. In somewhat identical circumstances, in a recent judgment rendered on 25.04.2024 in State of Haryana Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The rele facts are recorded is reproduced herein under: (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 23 ) the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos: First. - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in purpose of such defence. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party off provocation or commits the first assault. - Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. In somewhat identical circumstances, in a recent judgment rendered on 25.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.2265 of 2024 titled Mohd. Ahsan vs. State of Haryana, Hon’ble Supreme Court Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The rele facts are recorded is reproduced herein under: the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or bove exception is subject to the following provisos:- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the That the provocation is not given by anything done in the ight of private defence. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in necessary for the Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the In somewhat identical circumstances, in a recent judgment rendered on Criminal Appeal No.2265 of 2024 titled Mohd. Ahsan vs. , Hon’ble Supreme Court altered the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The relevant extract wherein facts are recorded is reproduced herein under: VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) “3.2 The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about 11 the de was situated opposite Bus Stop, and Rajiv Kumar (PW Gulati (PW the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the waiter, deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello”. This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette. The Appellant initially abused the deceased in the name of his sister a deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they were separated by the complainant (PW Appellant rushed to his car and pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding, after which t (PW motorbike of PW unavailability of a doctor, the deceased was subse Hospital, Jagadhri, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries. 29. Para 13 to 15 of the cited judgment wherein the relevant discussion has been made for altering conviction read as under: “13. From the testimonies of the p that there is no premeditation. The incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed at him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased. Th heated exchange between them. They grappled out of the building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in separating them, the accused Appellant rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver's seat side, broke it on the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased. 14. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also not show that the accused (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 24 ) The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about 11 the de-facto complainant (PW-10) had been taking food at Shiv Dhaba which was situated opposite Bus Stop, Jagadhri, in the company of Charan Singh and Rajiv Kumar (PW-12), when another group of four men, namely, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11), Kamal Kumar, Naresh Kumar and the deceased arrived at the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the waiter, deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello”. This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette. The Appellant initially abused the deceased in the name of his sister and thereafter rose from his seat, walked up to the deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they were separated by the complainant (PW-10) and his companions. Appellant rushed to his car and pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding, after which the Appellant fled from the scene. Subsequently, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11) and the others present at the Dhaba placed the deceased on the motorbike of PW-11 and rushed him to Aggarwal Hospital, but owing to the unavailability of a doctor, the deceased was subse Hospital, Jagadhri, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries. Para 13 to 15 of the cited judgment wherein the relevant discussion has been made for altering conviction read as under: 13. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses themselves, it would reveal that there is no premeditation. The incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed at him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased. Th heated exchange between them. They grappled out of the building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in separating them, the accused Appellant rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver's seat side, broke n the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also not show that the accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about 11-11:30 p.m., 10) had been taking food at Shiv Dhaba which Jagadhri, in the company of Charan Singh 12), when another group of four men, namely, Neeraj 11), Kamal Kumar, Naresh Kumar and the deceased arrived at the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the waiter, the deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello”. This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette. The Appellant initially abused the deceased in nd thereafter rose from his seat, walked up to the deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they were separated by the 10) and his companions. However, refusing to relent, the Appellant rushed to his car and pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding, he Appellant fled from the scene. Subsequently, Neeraj Gulati 11) and the others present at the Dhaba placed the deceased on the 11 and rushed him to Aggarwal Hospital, but owing to the unavailability of a doctor, the deceased was subsequently taken to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.” Para 13 to 15 of the cited judgment wherein the relevant discussion has been made for altering conviction read as under: rosecution witnesses themselves, it would reveal that there is no premeditation. The incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed at him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased. This was followed by a heated exchange between them. They grappled out of the building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in separating them, the accused- Appellant rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver's seat side, broke n the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also either taken undue advantage or acted VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. 15. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The conviction one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight (08) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ Five thousand) and in default of period of three (03) months.” 30. Admittedly, the part of the accused. They had no motive whatsoever to eliminate the deceased nor were carrying on account of the having objected to the conduct of shirt in the dining hall that a quarrel ensued hotel owner and after giving fist blows and slaps to the hotel owner all the said three assailants immediately rushed outside the hotel and picked up soda water bottles from a shop situated across the road same towards the hotel. However, when the deceased, who had come to the hotel to collect payment for having supplied dairy products, tried to intervene and to stop the assailants, he suffer assailants, who happened in the spur of the moment The accused, as already noticed, were had made any preparation to inflict injuries. The would, thus, be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, namely, Kimti Lal, Raju (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 25 ) in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight (08) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ Five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for period of three (03) months.” Admittedly, the instant case is a case where the part of the accused. They had no motive whatsoever to eliminate the deceased nor were carrying any weapon at the time of occurrence. on account of the owner of Shifali Hotel having objected to the conduct of Raju @ Ram Pal shirt in the dining hall that a quarrel ensued hotel owner and after giving fist blows and slaps to the hotel owner all the said three assailants immediately rushed outside the hotel and picked up soda water bottles from a shop situated across the road same towards the hotel. However, when the deceased, who had come to the hotel to collect payment for having supplied dairy products, tried to intervene and to stop the assailants, he suffer assailants, who hit him with bottles. It is a case where everything happened in the spur of the moment without there being premeditation. The accused, as already noticed, were neither had made any preparation to inflict injuries. The would, thus, be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, namely, Kimti Lal, Raju in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight (08) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a where there was no premeditation on the part of the accused. They had no motive whatsoever to eliminate the any weapon at the time of occurrence. It was Shifali Hotel namely Vikas Sahni (PW-4) @ Ram Pal having taken off his shirt in the dining hall that a quarrel ensued between three accused and the hotel owner and after giving fist blows and slaps to the hotel owner all the said three assailants immediately rushed outside the hotel and picked up soda water bottles from a shop situated across the road and threw the same towards the hotel. However, when the deceased, who had in fact come to the hotel to collect payment for having supplied dairy products, tried to intervene and to stop the assailants, he suffered the wrath of three It is a case where everything without there being premeditation. neither carrying any weapon nor had made any preparation to inflict injuries. The case of the accused would, thus, be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, namely, Kimti Lal, Raju would, thus, be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-642-DB-2004 CRA-D-661-2004 (O&M) & CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 (O&M) @ Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash for offence under Section 302 IPC is found to be unsustainable. However, the facts o above, attract an offence punishable unde 31. Resultantly, Jaswant Singh and Dalbir Singh the charges framed against them behalf of appellants 2004 preferred on behalf of extent that 307 IPC is set aside, their conviction for offence under Section with Section read with Section imprisonment for 7 years. however, remain 32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. 33. The appellant part of sentence. 34. Pending application/s, if any, are also stand disposed of. 18.01.2025 mohan/Vimal (O&M); 2004 (O&M) & 2004 (O&M) ( 26 ) @ Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash for offence under Section 302 IPC is found to be unsustainable. However, the facts o above, attract an offence punishable under Section 304 Part Resultantly, CRA-S-1378-SB-2004 preferred on behalf of Jaswant Singh and Dalbir Singh is allowed the charges framed against them. CRA- appellants - Kimti Lal and Ram Parkash preferred on behalf of appellant - Ram Pal while their conviction for offence under Section 148 IPC and is set aside, their conviction for offence under Section Section 34 IPC is converted into an offence Section 34 IPC and they are sentenced t imprisonment for 7 years. The fine as imposed by the trial Court shall remain unaltered. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. The appellants, if on bail, be arrested immediately to undergo remaining part of sentence. Pending application/s, if any, are also stand disposed of. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: @ Ram Pal, Hanuman @ Ram Parkash for offence under Section 302 IPC is found to be unsustainable. However, the facts of the case, as discussed r Section 304 Part-I IPC. preferred on behalf of appellants - is allowed and they are acquitted of all -D-642-DB-2004 preferred on Kimti Lal and Ram Parkash as well as CRA-D-661- Ram Pal are partly allowed to the e their conviction for offence under Section 148 IPC and is set aside, their conviction for offence under Section 302 read an offence under Section 304 Part I sentenced to undergo rigorous as imposed by the trial Court shall, A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary arrested immediately to undergo remaining Pending application/s, if any, are also stand disposed of. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.18 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document