CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana 1. Gurcharan Singh & others State of Punjab 2. Jagdev Singh & another State of Punjab 3. Jaswant Singh Gurcharan Singh & others CORAM: Present: (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CR Gurcharan Singh & others Versus State of Punjab CRA Jagdev Singh & another Versus Punjab CR Jaswant Singh Versus Gurcharan Singh & others Date of Decision HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for appellant No.2 in CRA-D-63 for respondent No.2 in CRR-995 Mr. S.S.Narula, Mr. Baljinder Singh Advocates, for appellant No.2 in CRA for respondent No.4 in CRR-995 Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the petitioner in CRR-995-2005. Mr. Harkanwarjeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) … Appellants ... Respondent CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M) … Appellants ... Respondent CRR-995-2005 (O&M) ..… Petitioner ... Respondents Date of Decision:- 31.01.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI H.S.Randhawa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) 63-2005 and 995-2005. Mr. S.S.Narula, Mr. Baljinder Singh & Mr. Raman B.Garg, Advocates, for appellant No.2 in CRA-D-90-DB-2005 and 995-2005. Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) 2005. Mr. Harkanwarjeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J 1. This judgment shall dispose of above revision petition. The herein under: Appeals against conviction Case No. Appellants CRA-D- 63-DB- 2005 1. Gurcharan Singh 2. 3. Surinder Pal @ Kaka CRA-D- 90-DB- 2005 1. Jagdev Singh 2. Revision by the complainant/ Case No. Petitioner/Respondents CRR-995- 2005 1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) 2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi 3. Jagdev Singh (expired) 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) 6. Surinder Kaur (expired) 7. Satwant Kaur 2. As per prosecution, Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur regarding admission of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh visited the hospital. While to DMC, Ludhiana Singh (Ex.PL). Amarjit Singh, however, could not survive and succumbed to injuries in DMC, Ludhiana on 26.03.2002. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 2 ) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned set of revision petition. The names of all the appellants/petitioner under: Appeals against conviction: Appellants Findings of the trial Court 1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) 2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi 3. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) Convicted & u/s 1. Jagdev Singh (expired) 2. Surinder Pal @ Chindi Convicted & u/s 148 IPC the complainant/injured: Petitioner/Respondents Findings of the Court JASWANT SINGH Versus 1. Gurcharan Singh (expired) 2. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi 3. Jagdev Singh (expired) 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka (expired) 6. Surinder Kaur (expired) 7. Satwant Kaur (expired) Respondents No.1 5 stand convicted Respondents No. 7 stand acquitted As per prosecution, pursuant to receipt of an intimation Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur regarding admission of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh visited the hospital. While Amarjit Singh was found to have been to DMC, Ludhiana, the police was able to record the statement of Jaswant Singh (Ex.PL). Amarjit Singh, however, could not survive and succumbed to injuries in DMC, Ludhiana on 26.03.2002. mentioned set of two appeals and a names of all the appellants/petitioner are stated Findings of the trial Court Relief Sought Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC /s 148 IPC Appellants seek acquittal Convicted u/s 302/149 IPC & u/s 148 IPC Appellants seek acquittal Findings of the trial Court Relief Sought Respondents No.1 to stand convicted. espondents No.6 & stand acquitted Petitioner seeks enhancement of sentence of Resp. no. 1 to 5 AND ALSO seeks setting aside of acquittal of Resp. no.6 & 7 pursuant to receipt of an intimation on 22.03.2002 at from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur regarding admission of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh, the police was found to have been referred the police was able to record the statement of Jaswant Singh (Ex.PL). Amarjit Singh, however, could not survive and succumbed to injuries in DMC, Ludhiana on 26.03.2002. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) 3. The FIR (Ex.PQ) came to be lodged on the basis of state made by Jaswant Singh (complainant) agriculturist and that about two years back in the area of Bassi Daud Khan from Balwant Singh where Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop had harvested the sugarcane crop. On 22.03.2002 at about 7.30 AM Gurcharan Singh, his son Gurmit Singh @ Laddi, his brother Jagdev Singh, Lubhaya, Surinder wife of Jagdev Singh started ploughing ‘Massey’ tractor. same and asked them the village be associated, as had been agreed earlier and thereafter they could plough the land companions inflicted a blow with ‘ Singh gave a blow with ‘ inflicted a blow with ‘ ladies threw brick time Amarjit Singh of land, but he was also given brick and resultantly he fell down. All the accused took Amarjit Singh to their fields on their tractor (Amarjit Singh) be not spared and be killed. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 3 ) FIR (Ex.PQ) came to be lodged on the basis of state made by Jaswant Singh (complainant), wherein he stated that he is an agriculturist and that about two years back, they had purchased some land in the area of Bassi Daud Khan from Balwant Singh where Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop and as had been agreed had harvested the sugarcane crop. On 22.03.2002 at about 7.30 AM Gurcharan Singh, his son Gurmit Singh @ Laddi, his brother Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, Lubhaya, Surinder Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and Satwinder Kaur wife of Jagdev Singh started ploughing tractor. The complainant alleged that when he same and asked them (Gurcharan Singh & others) the village be associated, as had been agreed earlier and thereafter they could plough the land, Gurcharan Singh raised a ‘ s that the complainant be not spared. inflicted a blow with ‘kirpan’ on the left han Singh gave a blow with ‘dang’ on complainant’s left shoulder. Kaka inflicted a blow with ‘dang’ on the left thigh of the complainant. The two threw brick-bats. The complainant further alleged Amarjit Singh also came there so as to collected ‘ of land, but he was also given brick-bats blows by the ladies on his head and resultantly he fell down. All the accused took Amarjit Singh to their fields on their tractor. Gurcharan Singh was exhorting them that he (Amarjit Singh) be not spared and be killed. FIR (Ex.PQ) came to be lodged on the basis of statement (Ex.PL) , wherein he stated that he is an , they had purchased some land in the area of Bassi Daud Khan from Balwant Singh where Ravail Singh had been agreed, Gurcharan Singh etc. had harvested the sugarcane crop. On 22.03.2002 at about 7.30 AM, Gurcharan Singh, his son Gurmit Singh @ Laddi, his brother-in-law Surinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, Kaka son of Ram Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and Satwinder Kaur wife of Jagdev Singh started ploughing the land in question with a alleged that when he objected to the (Gurcharan Singh & others) that some person from the village be associated, as had been agreed earlier and thereafter they raised a ‘lalkara’ exhorting his that the complainant be not spared. Gurcharan Singh ’ on the left hand of the complainant. Jagdev on complainant’s left shoulder. Kaka ’ on the left thigh of the complainant. The two bats. The complainant further alleged that around that also came there so as to collected ‘Theka’ in respect bats blows by the ladies on his head and resultantly he fell down. All the accused took Amarjit Singh to their gh was exhorting them that he (Amarjit Singh) be not spared and be killed. Gurmit Singh inflicted a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) blow with ‘ Singh and Kaka Singh hitting him on various parts of body. On account of hue and cry having been raised, father of Amarjit Singh came to the spot and the complainant and where Amarjit Singh further stated therein that the entire occurrence was witnessed by his brother Surinder Singh and that all the accused after the occurrence had run away alongwith their respective weapons. It is alleged that for inflicting in the land, which had been purchased by the complainant & others and that they had also come to take possession of the same and when they restrained the accused from doing so, then he (complainant) and Singh were caused injuries. 4. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of Amarjit Singh were conducted. The dead body of Amarjit Singh was got subjected to post injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh was collected from the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Section 161 Cr.P.C. out of 7 accused whereas 2 of the co (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 4 ) blow with ‘kirpan’ on the right hand of Amarjit Singh. Jagdev, Surinder Singh and Kaka inflicted blows with their respective ‘ ing him on various parts of body. On account of hue and cry having been raised, father of Amarjit Singh came to the spot and the complainant and Amarjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur from Amarjit Singh was referred to DMC, Ludhiana further stated therein that the entire occurrence was witnessed by his brother Surinder Singh and that all the accused after the occurrence had run away alongwith their respective weapons. It is alleged that for inflicting injuries was that the accused wanted to take possession of the land, which had been purchased by the complainant & others and that they had also come to take possession of the same and when they restrained the accused from doing so, then he (complainant) and Singh were caused injuries. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of Amarjit Singh were conducted. The dead body of Amarjit Singh was got ubjected to post-mortem examination. The medical record pertaining to injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh was collected from the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of investigation, out of 7 accused to have participated in the commission of offence, 2 of the co-accused i.e. the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and on the right hand of Amarjit Singh. Jagdev, Surinder inflicted blows with their respective ‘dangs’ to Amarjit ing him on various parts of body. On account of hue and cry having been raised, father of Amarjit Singh came to the spot and shifted Amarjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur from DMC, Ludhiana. The complainant further stated therein that the entire occurrence was witnessed by his brother Surinder Singh and that all the accused after the occurrence had run away alongwith their respective weapons. It is alleged that the motive juries was that the accused wanted to take possession of the land, which had been purchased by the complainant & others and that they had also come to take possession of the same and when they restrained the accused from doing so, then he (complainant) and Amarjit Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of Amarjit Singh were conducted. The dead body of Amarjit Singh was got mortem examination. The medical record pertaining to injuries sustained by Jaswant Singh was collected from the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a es were recorded in terms of Upon conclusion of investigation, the police found 5 have participated in the commission of offence, accused i.e. the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) Satwant Kaur against 5 accused namely Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh @ Ladi, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who upon finding that the facts offences punishable under Sections the case to the Court of Sessions Additional Sessions Judge, presume that the accused had committed the offence in question accordingly framed charges against 5 accused on 5. Subsequently, after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court, the Cr.P.C. for summoning Satwant Kaur, which was allowed vide order securing their presence, fresh charges were framed against all the 7 accused on 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to he PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh, described 8 injuries was the injur shock and haemorrhage the ordinary course of nature. report as Ex.PA. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 5 ) Satwant Kaur were found innocent. Accordingly, challan was presented against 5 accused namely Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh @ Ladi, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who upon finding that the facts prima facie offences punishable under Sections 302/324/323/148/149 the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur finding sufficient grounds to presume that the accused had committed the offence in question accordingly framed charges against 5 accused on Subsequently, after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning two more co-accused Satwant Kaur, which was allowed vide order securing their presence, fresh charges were framed against all the 7 accused on 13.05.2003. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to he Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan, who had conducted post examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh, described 8 injuries found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leading to shock and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the copy of post report as Ex.PA. Accordingly, challan was presented against 5 accused namely Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh @ Ladi, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka on 24.05.2002 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, prima facie disclosed commission of 302/324/323/148/149 IPC committed vide order dated 13.06.2002. Learned finding sufficient grounds to presume that the accused had committed the offence in question accordingly framed charges against 5 accused on 04.09.2002. Subsequently, after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 accused i.e. Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2003 and upon securing their presence, fresh charges were framed against all the 7 The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 9 PWs, the gist of whose testimonies is being briefly referred to herein-under:- , who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh, described 8 found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death on the head as well as other injuries leading to , which was sufficient to cause death in He proved the copy of post-mortem VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiar had medico legally examined Amarjit Singh, when he was initiall respect of Amarjit Singh as Ex.PD, wherein he described 9 injuries found on the person of Amarjit on the same day, he had also medico legally examined Jaswant Singh and had described in MLR ( PW-3 Dr. Ashish Ohri, Registrar, Department of Surgery, DMCH, Ludhiana Singh in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana stated that the patient (Amarjit Singh) expired on that he had sent the intimation to the police in this regard. PW-4 Jaswant Singh question had been lodged stated broadly in tune with the version recorded in the FIR, which has already been referred to above. PW-5 Surinder Singh had witnessed the occurrence prosecution and has described the occurrence broadly in tune with the allegations recorded in the FIR. PW-6 Kulwant Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, produced the registration certificate in No. in the name of Gurcharan S PW-7 Raj Kumar, Patwari, plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PN. PW-8 SI Onkar Dutt stated that on Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 6 ) Dr. O.P.Gojra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiar had medico legally examined Amarjit Singh, when he was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, proved the MLR in respect of Amarjit Singh as Ex.PD, wherein he described 9 injuries found on the person of Amarjit on the same day, he had also medico legally examined Jaswant Singh and had found three injuries described in MLR (Ex.PE). Dr. Ashish Ohri, Registrar, Department of Surgery, DMCH, Ludhiana, produced the record pertaining to admission of Amarjit Singh in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana stated that the patient (Amarjit Singh) expired on that he had sent the intimation to the police in this regard. Jaswant Singh – complainant at whose instance the FIR in question had been lodged stated broadly in tune with the version recorded in the FIR, which has already been referred to above. Surinder Singh, brother of the complainant, who as per the FIR d witnessed the occurrence stated in support of the case of prosecution and has described the occurrence broadly in tune with the allegations recorded in the FIR. Kulwant Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, produced the registration certificate in respect of tractor bearing registration No.PB-07-H-1748, which as per record was found to be registered in the name of Gurcharan Singh. Raj Kumar, Patwari, stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PN. SI Onkar Dutt stated that on 22.03.2002, he was posted at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when an information was received Dr. O.P.Gojra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, who had medico legally examined Amarjit Singh, when he was taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, proved the MLR in respect of Amarjit Singh as Ex.PD, wherein he described 9 injuries found on the person of Amarjit Singh. He also stated that on the same day, he had also medico legally examined Jaswant three injuries on his person which he Dr. Ashish Ohri, Registrar, Department of Surgery, DMCH, , produced the record pertaining to admission of Amarjit Singh in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and stated that the patient (Amarjit Singh) expired on 26.03.2002 and that he had sent the intimation to the police in this regard. complainant at whose instance the FIR in question had been lodged stated broadly in tune with the version recorded in the FIR, which has already been referred to above. , brother of the complainant, who as per the FIR stated in support of the case of prosecution and has described the occurrence broadly in tune with the allegations recorded in the FIR. Kulwant Kaur, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, produced the respect of tractor bearing registration , which as per record was found to be registered stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PN. 22.03.2002, he was posted at Police when an information was received VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) regarding admission Hospital, Hoshiarpur and pursuant to the same, he went to the Civil Hospital, where he came to know that Amarjit Singh had already been referred to DMCH, Ludhiana. However, Jaswant Singh was present and he reco was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. stated that upon receipt of information on death of Amarjit Singh, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana prepared inquest report Ex.PC examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh conducted. He stated that 4 of the accused Surinder Pal and Surinder Singh they had surrendered in the Court on stated that he had interrogated Gurmit Singh During the course of cross of any weapon was effected from the accused and that he had gone to the place of occurrence on 5 lifted any blood stained soil from the spot. PW-9 ASI Mohinder Pal Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He stated that had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on was arrested on 26.04.2002 which he made a disclosure statement Ex.PV No.PB taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW. He further stated with regard to investigation conducted by him and that upon conclusion of investigation, challan had be (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 7 ) regarding admission of Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and pursuant to the same, he went to the Civil Hospital, where he came to know that Amarjit Singh had already been referred to DMCH, Ludhiana. However, Jaswant Singh was present and he recorded his statement was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. stated that upon receipt of information on death of Amarjit Singh, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana prepared inquest report Ex.PC examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh conducted. He stated that 4 of the accused namely Surinder Pal and Surinder Singh were arrested they had surrendered in the Court on stated that he had interrogated Gurmit Singh During the course of cross-examination, he stated that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the accused and that he had gone to the place of occurrence on 5 lifted any blood stained soil from the spot. ASI Mohinder Pal stated that on Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He stated that had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on was arrested on 24.04.2002. He further deposed that on .04.2002, he interrogated Gurcharan Singh during the course of which he made a disclosure statement Ex.PV No.PB-07-H-1748 and pursuant to the same, the said tractor was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW. He further stated with regard to investigation conducted by him and that upon conclusion of investigation, challan had be of Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and pursuant to the same, he went to the Civil Hospital, where he came to know that Amarjit Singh had already been referred to DMCH, Ludhiana. However, Jaswant rded his statement (Ex.PL), which was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. He further stated that upon receipt of information on 27.03.2002 regarding death of Amarjit Singh, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana and and got the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh conducted. He namely Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh, were arrested on 06.04.2002, as they had surrendered in the Court on 04.04.2002. He further stated that he had interrogated Gurmit Singh on 08.04.2002. examination, he stated that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the accused and that he had gone to the place of occurrence on 5th day and that he had not lifted any blood stained soil from the spot. stated that on 15.04.2002, he was posted at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, when he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He stated that accused Gurcharan Singh had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.04.2002 and He further deposed that on , he interrogated Gurcharan Singh during the course of which he made a disclosure statement Ex.PV regarding his tractor and pursuant to the same, the said tractor was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW. He further stated with regard to investigation conducted by him and that upon conclusion of investigation, challan had been presented. 08.04.2002. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., implication. along with question and that Gian Kaur had sold her share to Balwant Singh and Balwant Singh further sold it to Jaswant share was sold without possession. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question. He pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible possession of the property and that he had furnished surety bonds for release of Amarjit Singh, as Amarjit Singh was undergoing life imprisonment for murder. Jaswant Singh had come on a tractor belonging to the compl tractor ‘jumped and had sustained injuries and that the police, however, planted a false case upon the accused. 4 PWs, the gist of whose DW-1 Parveen Puri, on the basis of the summoned record, stated that in the newspaper published on regarding disinheritance of Gurmit Singh by his father Gurcharan Singh DW-2 Darshan Singh, SP, Vigilance application filed by Kamal Saini wife of accused he had conducted an enquiry and had found that Surinder Singh (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 8 ) Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., implication. Accused Gurcharan Singh, however, raised a plea that he with Satwant Kaur and Gian Kaur was owner of the property in and that Gian Kaur had sold her share to Balwant Singh and Balwant Singh further sold it to Jaswant share was sold without possession. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question. He pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible ion of the property and that he had furnished surety bonds for release of Amarjit Singh, as Amarjit Singh was undergoing life imprisonment for murder. He further stated that when Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh had come on a tractor belonging to the compl jumped’ and resultantly Amarjit Singh fell down from the tractor and had sustained injuries and that the police, however, planted a false case upon the accused. The accused in their defence examined as many as PWs, the gist of whose statements is stated Parveen Puri, Senior Clerk working in Punjabi newspaper ‘Ajit’ on the basis of the summoned record, stated that in the newspaper published on 09.08.1996, a public notice regarding disinheritance of Gurmit Singh by his father Gurcharan Singh. He produced the photocopy Darshan Singh, SP, Vigilance application filed by Kamal Saini wife of accused he had conducted an enquiry and had found that Surinder Singh Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded false Accused Gurcharan Singh, however, raised a plea that he r and Gian Kaur was owner of the property in and that Gian Kaur had sold her share to Balwant Singh and Singh – complainant, but the share was sold without possession. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question. He pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible ion of the property and that he had furnished surety bonds for release of Amarjit Singh, as Amarjit Singh was undergoing life He further stated that when Amarjit Singh and Jaswant Singh had come on a tractor belonging to the complainant, the and resultantly Amarjit Singh fell down from the tractor and had sustained injuries and that the police, however, planted a false The accused in their defence examined as many as stated to herein-under: Senior Clerk working in Punjabi newspaper ‘Ajit’ on the basis of the summoned record, stated that in the newspaper 09.08.1996, a public notice had been issued regarding disinheritance of Gurmit Singh by his father Gurcharan He produced the photocopy of public notice as Ex.D2. stated that pursuant to an application filed by Kamal Saini wife of accused Surinder Singh, he had conducted an enquiry and had found that Surinder Singh VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) was on duty on the relevant day at Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur. DW-3 Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, Criminal Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRM & others’ DW-4 HC Des Raj pertaining to the following FIR D8: 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. The accused also tendered into evidence report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. pertaining to FIR No. Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Suit No.303 of 1999 and thereafter closed their evidence. 9. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, acquitted Surinder Kaur and charges framed against them, (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 9 ) was on duty on the relevant day at Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur. Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, Criminal Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRM-44768-M-2003 titled ‘Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others’ and produced the certified copy HC Des Raj, Police Station Dadar, Hoshiarpur, brought the record pertaining to the following FIRs exhibited as FIR No.147 dated 28.06.1998 under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Gurdip Singh @ Babbi against Amarjit Singh FIR No.149 dated 06.07.1998 under Sections 323, 452 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Joginder Kaur against Amarjit Singh FIR No.13 dated 15.01.1999 under Sections IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Singh against Amarjit Singh & others FIR No.123 dated 14.05.1999 under Sections 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, statement of Jarnail Singh against Amarjit Singh The accused also tendered into evidence report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. pertaining to FIR No.395 dated 08.11.2002 Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Suit No.303 of 1999 and thereafter closed their evidence. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ Satvinder charges framed against them, but held that the prosecution had been was on duty on the relevant day at Municipal Committee, Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, Criminal Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh brought the file pertaining to 2003 titled ‘Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab tified copy of the petition as Ex.D4. , Police Station Dadar, Hoshiarpur, brought the record exhibited as Ex.D5, D6, D7 & FIR No.147 dated 28.06.1998 under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of against Amarjit Singh & others FIR No.149 dated 06.07.1998 under Sections 323, 452 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of against Amarjit Singh & others under Sections 452, 148, 149, 429 27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the statement of Jagdip & others under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur on the against Amarjit Singh & others The accused also tendered into evidence report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and orders passed by the Civil Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in Suit No.303 of The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur of all the held that the prosecution had been VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) successful in establishing its case Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka accordingly, con 1. 1. Gurcharan Singh, 2. Gurmit Singh, 3. Jagdev Singh, 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka 2. 1. Gurcharan Singh, 2. Gurmit Singh, 3. Jagdev Singh, 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka 3. Gurcharan Singh 4. 1. Jagdev Singh 2. Surinder Pal @ Kaka 10. It may here be mentioned that out of 5 accused, who had been convic and sentenced by the trial Court them already stand abated vide order dated acquitted co Satvinder Kaur and proceedings qua them also stand abated vide order dated Consequently, the appeals as well as revision survive only against 2 convicts/accused namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the judgment as regards @ Chindi, submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that admittedly it (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 10 ) successful in establishing its case against Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as under: 1. Gurcharan Singh, 2. Gurmit Singh, 3. Jagdev Singh, 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka To undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each 1. Gurcharan Singh, 2. Gurmit Singh, 3. Jagdev Singh, 4. Surinder Pal @ Chindi 5. Surinder Pal @ Kaka To undergo RI for Gurcharan Singh To undergo RI for 2 years under Section 324 IPC and to further pay a fine of Rs.1000/ 1. Jagdev Singh 2. Surinder Pal @ Kaka To undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323 IPC It may here be mentioned that out of 5 accused, who had been convic and sentenced by the trial Court, 3 have expired and proceedings qua them already stand abated vide order dated acquitted co-accused namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur (respondents No.6 & 7 in CRR and proceedings qua them also stand abated vide order dated Consequently, the appeals as well as revision survive only against 2 convicts/accused namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the judgment as regards conviction of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal , submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that admittedly it against Gurcharan Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jagdev Singh, Surinder Pal @ Chindi and Surinder Pal @ Kaka and victed and sentenced them as under: To undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine each To undergo RI for 3 years under Section 148 IPC To undergo RI for 2 years under Section 324 IPC and to further pay a fine of Rs.1000/- To undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323 It may here be mentioned that out of 5 accused, who had been convicted , 3 have expired and proceedings qua them already stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024. Even the two namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur @ (respondents No.6 & 7 in CRR-995-2005) have expired and proceedings qua them also stand abated vide order dated 23.01.2024. Consequently, the appeals as well as revision survive only against 2 convicts/accused namely Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal , submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that admittedly it is a case where accused party VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) was in possession of the agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place and that the complainant party had come there to take forcible possession of the said land leading to the submitted that even if the allegations pertaining to the accused having inflicting injuries to the complainant and to the deceased are taken to be correct, still no offence can be said to be committed by the accused, as they had acted in self 12. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where a very specific account of the occurrence has been narrated by the complainant in the FIR, wherein not only all the accused have been specifically named, has been submitted that the complainant the witness recorded by him in the FIR, which is corroborated not only by the other eye-witness medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW and PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra shape of post furnished opinion counsel further Court as regards accused having caused injuries in self accepted to be correct, still it is accused are far in excess of the threat perception inasmuch as none from the complainant side was armed with any weapon and in fact all the 7 (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) was in possession of the agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place and that the complainant party had come there to take forcible possession of the said land leading to the incident tted that even if the allegations pertaining to the accused having inflicting injuries to the complainant and to the deceased are taken to be correct, still no offence can be said to be committed by the accused, as they had acted in self-defence. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case a very specific account of the occurrence has been narrated by the complainant in the FIR, wherein not only all the accused have been specifically named, but roles are also attri has been submitted that the complainant – Jaswant Singh the witness-box stated absolutely in consonance with the version got recorded by him in the FIR, which is corroborated not only by the other witness i.e. PW-5 Surinder Singh, but is duly medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW 2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, who have proved the medical record in the shape of post-mortem report and medico legal report and have opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased. Leaned State further submitted that even if the contention raised before this Court as regards accused having caused injuries in self accepted to be correct, still it is apparent that the injuries caused by the accused are far in excess of the threat perception inasmuch as none from the complainant side was armed with any weapon and in fact all the 7 was in possession of the agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place and that the complainant party had come there to take forcible incident in question. It has been tted that even if the allegations pertaining to the accused having inflicting injuries to the complainant and to the deceased are taken to be correct, still no offence can be said to be committed by the accused, as Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case a very specific account of the occurrence has been narrated by the complainant in the FIR, wherein not only all the accused have been but roles are also attributed specifically to them. It Jaswant Singh (PW-4) while in box stated absolutely in consonance with the version got recorded by him in the FIR, which is corroborated not only by the other 5 Surinder Singh, but is duly borne out from the medical evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh have proved the medical record in the mortem report and medico legal report and have also regarding cause of death of the deceased. Leaned State if the contention raised before this Court as regards accused having caused injuries in self-defence is apparent that the injuries caused by the accused are far in excess of the threat perception inasmuch as none from the complainant side was armed with any weapon and in fact all the 7 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) accused were out the complainant and the deceased. dismissal of the appeals. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision petition submitted that the sent Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi that the same be enhanced and compensation be also awarded out of the enhanced fine that may be imposed. 14. We have considered rival submis with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 15. Before proceeding support his version and also the plea of self accused, it is appo to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the deceased and the cause of death. 22.03.2002, the acc Singh and also to deceased examined PW Singh, who had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur was medico legally examined by him and he had found the following injuries on his person: (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) accused were out-numbering the 2 persons from the complainant side i.e. the complainant and the deceased. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision petition submitted that the sentence imposed upon the two accused Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi that the same be enhanced and compensation be also awarded out of the enhanced fine that may be imposed. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the Before proceeding to examine the oral evidence led by the complainant to support his version and also the plea of self accused, it is apposite to first of all examine the medical record pertaining to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the deceased and the cause of death. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 22.03.2002, the accused had inflicted injuries to complainant Singh and also to deceased - Amarjit Singh examined PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, who stated Singh, who had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur was co legally examined by him and he had found the following injuries on his person: the 2 persons from the complainant side i.e. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision ence imposed upon the two accused i.e. Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi is on the lesser side and that the same be enhanced and compensation be also awarded out of the sions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the to examine the oral evidence led by the complainant to support his version and also the plea of self-defence being raised by the examine the medical record pertaining to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the deceased and the It is the specific case of the complainant that on used had inflicted injuries to complainant - Jaswant Amarjit Singh. The prosecution has , who stated that on 22.03.2002, Amarjit Singh, who had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur was co legally examined by him and he had found the following injuries VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) “1. There was a swelling of 5 cm in diameter on left temporal region just above the left pinna. An abrasion of 5 cm on the swelling there was bleeding from left ear. Surgic 2. Bleeding left ear. Advised ENT and Surgical opinion. 3. Deformity with opinion was advised. 4. Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen. Ortho 5. An incised wound on the dorsal surface of right thumb underlying bone cut (near and behind the nail). Fresh bleeding was present. 6. An abrasion on the medical side of right forearm in middle (13 x 2 cm) advised X 7. Multiple co ray was advised. 8. Multiple reddish contusions ranging from 30 cm x 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm on back. (Whole) X 9. Multiple abrasions on right leg in lower 1/3 Advised X 16. He further deposed that injury No.5 had been declared grievous and that the weapon used for causing the said injury was sharp while the injuries had been caused with a blunt edged weapon. cross-examination, he stated that injury No.5 could also be possible on account of remaining could be possible on account of fall from the tractor. Singh was referred remained under treatment, but ultimately succumbed to injuries on 26.03.2002. The dead body was got subject to post which was conducted by PW (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 13 ) There was a swelling of 5 cm in diameter on left temporal region just above the left pinna. An abrasion of 5 cm on the swelling there was bleeding from left ear. Surgical opinion was advised. Bleeding left ear. Advised ENT and Surgical opinion. Deformity with un-natural moment of left leg in lower part. Ortho opinion was advised. Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen. Ortho opinion advised. An incised wound on the dorsal surface of right thumb underlying bone cut (near and behind the nail). Fresh bleeding was present. An abrasion on the medical side of right forearm in middle (13 x 2 cm) advised X-ray. Multiple contusions of left elbow joint extending to arm (all along) X ray was advised. Multiple reddish contusions ranging from 30 cm x 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm on back. (Whole) X-ray was advised. Multiple abrasions on right leg in lower 1/3 Advised X-ray.” He further deposed that injury No.5 had been declared grievous and that the weapon used for causing the said injury was sharp while the injuries had been caused with a blunt edged weapon. examination, he stated that injury No.5 could also be possible on account of striking with the edge of the mudguard of tractor and the remaining could be possible on account of fall from the tractor. was referred to the DMCH, Ludhiana on the same day where he remained under treatment, but ultimately succumbed to injuries on 26.03.2002. The dead body was got subject to post which was conducted by PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan There was a swelling of 5 cm in diameter on left temporal region just above the left pinna. An abrasion of 5 cm on the swelling there was al opinion was advised. Bleeding left ear. Advised ENT and Surgical opinion. natural moment of left leg in lower part. Ortho Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen. An incised wound on the dorsal surface of right thumb underlying bone cut (near and behind the nail). Fresh bleeding was present. An abrasion on the medical side of right forearm in middle (13 x 2 ntusions of left elbow joint extending to arm (all along) X- Multiple reddish contusions ranging from 30 cm x 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 ray was advised. Multiple abrasions on right leg in lower 1/3rd (Reddish abrasion). He further deposed that injury No.5 had been declared grievous and that the weapon used for causing the said injury was sharp while the remaining injuries had been caused with a blunt edged weapon. During the course of examination, he stated that injury No.5 could also be possible on striking with the edge of the mudguard of tractor and the remaining could be possible on account of fall from the tractor. Amarjit to the DMCH, Ludhiana on the same day where he remained under treatment, but ultimately succumbed to injuries on 26.03.2002. The dead body was got subject to post-mortem examination, Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan, who proved Swelling of right hand (dorsum). No external mark of injury seen. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) the post-mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries on the dead body as under: “1. Blackish abrasion of 0.5 cm in diameter above the left pinna present and there was a swelling 5 cm in diameter. 2. Deformity of fracture of left leg in lower part was pres dissection of the leg, the tibia and fibula was fractured in the lower 1/3 fracture. 3. Swelling of right hand with no underlying fracture. 4. Incised wound on dorsal surface of the underlying bone cut behind the nail. 5. Blackish abrasion cm. 6. Blackish multiple abrasion contusion present on the left elbow joint extending to arm. 7. Multiple contusion back. 8. Multiple abrasion on right leg in lower 1/3 black in colour. 17. PW-1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan opined that cause of death of Amarjit Singh was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leadi and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Surinder Sing having been caused to Amarjit Sing the same could be possible if he is dragged in different postures. MLR as well as the post injuries, which were found on the person of Amarjit Singh immediately when he was taken to the (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 14 ) mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries on the dead body as under: Blackish abrasion of 0.5 cm in diameter above the left pinna present and there was a swelling 5 cm in diameter. Deformity of fracture of left leg in lower part was pres dissection of the leg, the tibia and fibula was fractured in the lower 1/3 of the bones. There was clotted blood present all around the fracture. Swelling of right hand with no underlying fracture. Incised wound on dorsal surface of the underlying bone cut behind the nail. Blackish abrasion on medial side of right forearm in its middle 13x2 cm. Blackish multiple abrasion contusion present on the left elbow joint extending to arm. Multiple contusion ranging from 30 cm to 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm its back. Multiple abrasion on right leg in lower 1/3 black in colour. 1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan opined that cause of death of Amarjit was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leadi and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During the course of cross Surinder Singh Chohan stated that there could be possibility of injuries having been caused to Amarjit Singh if he had fallen from the tractor, but the same could be possible if he is dragged in different postures. MLR as well as the post-mortem report clearly show the existence of the injuries, which were found on the person of Amarjit Singh immediately was taken to the hospital on the day of occurrence itself. mortem report as Ex.PA and described the injuries on the dead Blackish abrasion of 0.5 cm in diameter above the left pinna present and there was a swelling 5 cm in diameter. Deformity of fracture of left leg in lower part was present on dissection of the leg, the tibia and fibula was fractured in the lower of the bones. There was clotted blood present all around the Swelling of right hand with no underlying fracture. Incised wound on dorsal surface of the right thumb present, on medial side of right forearm in its middle 13x2 Blackish multiple abrasion contusion present on the left elbow joint 30 cm to 3 cm to 4 cm x 3 cm its Multiple abrasion on right leg in lower 1/3 black in colour.” 1 Dr. Surinder Singh Chohan opined that cause of death of Amarjit was the injury on the head as well as other injuries leading to shock and haemorrhage, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 Dr. Chohan stated that there could be possibility of injuries h if he had fallen from the tractor, but the same could be possible if he is dragged in different postures. The mortem report clearly show the existence of the injuries, which were found on the person of Amarjit Singh immediately ospital on the day of occurrence itself. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) 18. Although during the course of cross questions to the Doctors concerned regarding possibility of the injuries having been caused on account of fall from the did not categorically deny, but PW clarified that the possibility could only be there in case the deceased also dragged in different postures. description on the left and right side. It is not borne out from any record that deceased had from the tractor. Under these circumstanc the accused that the injuries were not caused by the accused but were result of fall from the tractor is solely misconceived. the injuries as found on the person of the deceased had been inflicted to him by some persons and is not result of fall from the tractor. Surinder Singh Chohan has death to be the of the opinion of the Doctor in this regard. Consequently, it is held that Amarjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him. 19. As regards the injuries sustained by also taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 22.03.2002, where he was medico legally examined by PW O.P.Gojra, who found the following injuries on his person: “1. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 15 ) Although during the course of cross-examination, the accused put questions to the Doctors concerned regarding possibility of the injuries having been caused on account of fall from the did not categorically deny, but PW-1 Dr. Suridner Singh Chohan clarified that the possibility could only be there in case the deceased also dragged in different postures. In the present case, a perusal of the n of injuries shows that the injuries are on various parts of body on the left and right side. It is not borne out from any record that had been dragged in different directions after from the tractor. Under these circumstances, the suggestion on behalf of the accused that the injuries were not caused by the accused but were result of fall from the tractor is solely misconceived. the injuries as found on the person of the deceased had been inflicted to him by some persons and is not result of fall from the tractor. Surinder Singh Chohan has categorically opined regarding the cause of death to be the injuries. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity of the opinion of the Doctor in this regard. Consequently, it is held that Amarjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him. As regards the injuries sustained by complaina also taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on the day of occurrence itself i.e. , where he was medico legally examined by PW O.P.Gojra, who found the following injuries on his person: Two parallel incised wounds 3 cm x 2 cm (5 cm apart on the left palmer surface just below the matacarpo region lower starts just examination, the accused put questions to the Doctors concerned regarding possibility of the injuries having been caused on account of fall from the tractor, which the Doctors 1 Dr. Suridner Singh Chohan has clarified that the possibility could only be there in case the deceased was In the present case, a perusal of the that the injuries are on various parts of body on the left and right side. It is not borne out from any record that the been dragged in different directions after the alleged fall es, the suggestion on behalf of the accused that the injuries were not caused by the accused but were result of fall from the tractor is solely misconceived. It is, thus, held that the injuries as found on the person of the deceased had been inflicted to him by some persons and is not result of fall from the tractor. PW-1 Dr. categorically opined regarding the cause of injuries. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity of the opinion of the Doctor in this regard. Consequently, it is held that Amarjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him. complainant - Jaswant Singh, he was also taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on the day of occurrence itself i.e. , where he was medico legally examined by PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra, who found the following injuries on his person: Two parallel incised wounds 3 cm x 2 cm (5 cm apart on the left palmer surface just below the matacarpo region lower starts just VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) 2. 3. 20. PW-2 Dr. O.P.Gojra opined that injury No.1 has been caused with a sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blu He further stated that all the three injuries were declared as simple in nature. Nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross examination of the person of injured/ 21. PW-4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness manner in which the injuries were caused to him as well as to Amarjit Singh on 22.03.2002, when they had objected to Gurcharan Singh & others. He stated that when he had objected to the same, Gurcharan Singh had raised a ‘ with the help of ‘ Singh inflicted a blow with ‘ @ Kaka also gave a blow with ‘ that the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur brick-bats as a result of which injuries were caused on the head of Amarji Singh, who had also come there to collect lease money from the complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna. He further stated that Amarjit Singh was lifted by all the 7 accused in the (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 16 ) before the wound No.1. Fresh bleeding present.) Advised X ray. Pain in left shoulder joint. No external mark of injury see Advised X-ray. Complaint of pain in left thigh in the middle. No external mark of injury seen. Advised X-ray.” 2 Dr. O.P.Gojra opined that injury No.1 has been caused with a sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blu He further stated that all the three injuries were declared as simple in Nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross examination of the Doctors so as to doubt the existence of the injuries on the person of injured/deceased or as regards the nature. 4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness manner in which the injuries were caused to him as well as to Amarjit 22.03.2002, when they had objected to charan Singh & others. He stated that when he had objected to the same, Gurcharan Singh had raised a ‘lalkara with the help of ‘kirpan’ on his right hand and that thereafter Jaswant Singh inflicted a blow with ‘dang’ on his left shoulder and @ Kaka also gave a blow with ‘dang’ on his left thigh. that the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur bats as a result of which injuries were caused on the head of Amarji Singh, who had also come there to collect lease money from the complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna. He further stated that Amarjit Singh was lifted by all the 7 accused in the before the wound No.1. Fresh bleeding present.) Advised X- Pain in left shoulder joint. No external mark of injury seen. Complaint of pain in left thigh in the middle. No external mark ” 2 Dr. O.P.Gojra opined that injury No.1 has been caused with a sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blunt weapon. He further stated that all the three injuries were declared as simple in Nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross- so as to doubt the existence of the injuries on deceased or as regards the nature. 4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) while in the witness-box described the manner in which the injuries were caused to him as well as to Amarjit 22.03.2002, when they had objected to ploughing of fields by charan Singh & others. He stated that when he had objected to the lalkara’ and had inflicted an injury on his right hand and that thereafter Jaswant on his left shoulder and Surinder Pal ’ on his left thigh. He further stated that the ladies namely Surinder Kaur and Satwant Kaur started pelting bats as a result of which injuries were caused on the head of Amarjit Singh, who had also come there to collect lease money from the complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna. He further stated that Amarjit Singh was lifted by all the 7 accused in the n. nt weapon. complainant in respect of his land, which was situated in Village Mehna. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) tractor and was taken to wheat fields bel Singh had inflicted a blow with ‘ Singh. He further deposed that exhorting his companions that Amarjit and upon which @ Kaka started inflicting He further stated that his brother Surinder Singh occurrence. narration of the incident in the identical manner, as stated by PW Jaswant Singh (complainant). 22. The ocular version as regards inflicting of injuries by the accused, as spelt out by the aforesaid two witnesses i.e. PW and PW-5 Surinder Singh examination and as such, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings of the trial Court to the extent that the injuries found on the person of injured/complainant and the deceased had been caused by the accused. However, whether the injuries caused by the accused had been caused by them in their self-defence so as to protect their property possession i.e. land where the occurrence had taken place. 23. It is pertinent to notice that it is the specific case of the complainant that they had purchased the land about 2 years back from Balwant Singh and that Ravail Singh had (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 17 ) tractor and was taken to wheat fields belonging to them and that Gurmit Singh had inflicted a blow with ‘kirpan’ on the right hand of Amarjit . He further deposed that Gurcharan Singh had raised a ‘ exhorting his companions that Amarjit Singh be not spared and be killed and upon which Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh @ started inflicting ‘dang’ blows on the person of Amarjit Singh. He further stated that his brother Surinder Singh ence. PW-5 Surinder Singh, brother of the complainant, also gave a narration of the incident in the identical manner, as stated by PW Jaswant Singh (complainant). The ocular version as regards inflicting of injuries by the accused, as spelt y the aforesaid two witnesses i.e. PW-4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) 5 Surinder Singh, remained un-sh examination and as such, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings of the trial Court to the extent that the injuries found on the person of injured/complainant and the deceased had been caused by the However, the material question before this Court is as to whether the injuries caused by the accused had been caused by them in defence so as to protect their property possession i.e. land where the occurrence had taken place. is pertinent to notice that it is the specific case of the complainant that they had purchased the land about 2 years back from Balwant Singh and that Ravail Singh had sown sugarcane crop in the field which the onging to them and that Gurmit ’ on the right hand of Amarjit Gurcharan Singh had raised a ‘lalkara’ Singh be not spared and be killed Jagdev Singh, Surinder Singh @ Chindi and Surinder Pal blows on the person of Amarjit Singh. He further stated that his brother Surinder Singh had also witnessed the 5 Surinder Singh, brother of the complainant, also gave a narration of the incident in the identical manner, as stated by PW-4 The ocular version as regards inflicting of injuries by the accused, as spelt 4 Jaswant Singh (complainant) shattered despite lengthy cross- examination and as such, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings of the trial Court to the extent that the injuries found on the person of injured/complainant and the deceased had been caused by the the material question before this Court is as to whether the injuries caused by the accused had been caused by them in defence so as to protect their property which they were in possession i.e. land where the occurrence had taken place. is pertinent to notice that it is the specific case of the complainant that they had purchased the land about 2 years back from Balwant Singh and sugarcane crop in the field which the blows on the person of Amarjit Singh. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) complainant had purchased and that it had be Singh after harvesting the sugarcane crop would hand over the possession to the complainant. also been stated (complainant) that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the property in question to take possession. Singh stated as under: “………..It is however correct Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The estate of Swaran Singh devolved upon his sons only on the basis of the were consenting parties to Will. Joginder their father before the present incident. The disputed land which we purchased from Balwant Singh of Swarn Cinema is the same land which was belonging to Piara Singh. the land would be delivered to us after harvesting the sugarcane crop was written compromise police and copy of the same is also with us. I can produce the compromise document in the court. 24. It has also been admitted by the complainant that he had been proceeded against for security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. about 8 days prior to the occurrence, which had been initiated on an application filed by Gurcharan moved an application. The aforesaid position suggests that it is a case where the complainant party had purchased the land in question from Balwant Singh, but at the time of purchase, possession of the pr (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 18 ) complainant had purchased and that it had be Singh after harvesting the sugarcane crop would hand over the possession to the complainant. The said fact is not only stated in the FIR, but has also been stated so in the witness-box by (complainant). In fact in the FIR, the complainant had also got recorded that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the property in question to take possession. During the course of cross Singh stated as under: ………..It is however correct that Swaran Singh was the father of Piar Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The estate of Swaran Singh devolved upon his sons only on the basis of the Will and the daughters of Swaran Singh were consenting parties to Will. I do not know if Satwant Kaur and Joginder Kaur instituted a suit (civil) claiming the share to the estate of their father before the present incident. The disputed land which we purchased from Balwant Singh of Swarn Cinema is the same land which was belonging to Piara Singh. The compromise the land would be delivered to us after harvesting the sugarcane crop was written compromise. The written compromise was handed over to the police and copy of the same is also with us. I can produce the compromise document in the court.” It has also been admitted by the complainant that he had been proceeded against for security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. about 8 days prior to the occurrence, which had been initiated on an application filed by Gurcharan Singh and his wife and that he (complainant) moved an application. The aforesaid position suggests that it is a case where the complainant party had purchased the land in question from Balwant Singh, but at the time of purchase, possession of the pr complainant had purchased and that it had been agreed that Gurcharan Singh after harvesting the sugarcane crop would hand over the possession not only stated in the FIR, but has box by PW-4 Jaswant Singh in the FIR, the complainant had also got recorded that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the property in question to cross-examination, PW-4 Jaswant Swaran Singh was the father of Piara Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The estate of Swaran Singh devolved upon ill and the daughters of Swaran Singh I do not know if Satwant Kaur and Kaur instituted a suit (civil) claiming the share to the estate of their father before the present incident. The disputed land which we purchased from Balwant Singh of Swarn Cinema is the same land which The compromise that the possession of the land would be delivered to us after harvesting the sugarcane crop was . The written compromise was handed over to the police and copy of the same is also with us. I can produce the It has also been admitted by the complainant that he had been proceeded against for security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. about 8 days prior to the occurrence, which had been initiated on an application Singh and his wife and that he (complainant) also moved an application. The aforesaid position suggests that it is a case where the complainant party had purchased the land in question from Balwant Singh, but at the time of purchase, possession of the property had VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) not been handed over to the complainant and it had been agreed that the same would be handed over after the sugarcane crop standing on the fields is harvested by Gurcharan Singh. It appears that Gurcharan Singh & others, however, did not hand o despite having harvested the sugarcane crop and rather started ploughing the land, which was objected to by the complainant resulting in the fight in question. In other words, although physical possession of the prop was supposed to be delivered to the complainant party after harvesting of sugarcane crop, but the same was not delivered and apparently it is the accused who were still in possession of the same. 25. Under these circumstances, when the accused property in question and the complainant and Amarjit Singh (deceased) went on the tractor to the fields, the accused who were in possession of the property, even if in unauthorized possession, did have a right of self defence to protec the disputed property and the accused apprehending caused injuries 26. However, it needs to be noticed that it is a case where the complainant was accompanied by one more person only i.e. Amarjit Singh, whereas the accused were deceased were stated to be armed with any weapon. circumstances, the act of the accused having inflicting as many as 9 injuries to Amarjit Singh and 3 injuries to Jaswant Singh including 1 (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 19 ) not been handed over to the complainant and it had been agreed that the same would be handed over after the sugarcane crop standing on the fields is harvested by Gurcharan Singh. It appears that Gurcharan Singh & others, however, did not hand over possession of the land in question despite having harvested the sugarcane crop and rather started ploughing the land, which was objected to by the complainant resulting in the fight in question. In other words, although physical possession of the prop was supposed to be delivered to the complainant party after harvesting of sugarcane crop, but the same was not delivered and apparently it is the who were still in possession of the same. Under these circumstances, when the accused property in question and the complainant and Amarjit Singh (deceased) went on the tractor to the fields, the accused who were in possession of the property, even if in unauthorized possession, did have a right of self to protect their property. The occurrence the disputed property and the accused apprehending caused injuries to the complainant and to the deceased However, it needs to be noticed that it is a case where the complainant was accompanied by one more person only i.e. Amarjit Singh, whereas the accused were numbering seven. Neither the deceased were stated to be armed with any weapon. circumstances, the act of the accused having inflicting as many as 9 injuries to Amarjit Singh and 3 injuries to Jaswant Singh including 1 not been handed over to the complainant and it had been agreed that the same would be handed over after the sugarcane crop standing on the fields is harvested by Gurcharan Singh. It appears that Gurcharan Singh & ver possession of the land in question despite having harvested the sugarcane crop and rather started ploughing the land, which was objected to by the complainant resulting in the fight in question. In other words, although physical possession of the property was supposed to be delivered to the complainant party after harvesting of sugarcane crop, but the same was not delivered and apparently it is the who were still in possession of the same. Under these circumstances, when the accused were in possession of the property in question and the complainant and Amarjit Singh (deceased) went on the tractor to the fields, the accused who were in possession of the property, even if in unauthorized possession, did have a right of self- The occurrence having taken place in the disputed property and the accused apprehending forcible dispossession to the complainant and to the deceased. However, it needs to be noticed that it is a case where the complainant was accompanied by one more person only i.e. Amarjit Singh, whereas seven. Neither the complainant nor the deceased were stated to be armed with any weapon. Under these circumstances, the act of the accused having inflicting as many as 9 injuries to Amarjit Singh and 3 injuries to Jaswant Singh including 1 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) incised wound on each of them, was certainly not justified action was not in proportion to 27. Some of the relevant provisions pertaining to ‘self defence’ as embodied in IPC need to be borne in mind. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Under Section 97 every person has a righ Section 99, to defend his own body, against any offence affecting the human body. Under Section 99 the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm th is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Under Section 100, right of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence which occasions the exercise of such right is an assault which reasonably causes an apprehension of de Section 101, save as provided by Section 99, the right extends to the voluntary causing to the assailment of any harm other than death. Under Section 102 the right once available continues as long as an apprehens of danger to the body continues. When the apprehension of danger has ceased and yet a person continues his attack, he exceeds the right of private defence. Section 103 defines situations where such right can even extend to causing death. 28. As already noticed above, it is a case where (Jaswant Singh) the accused, but they were even unarmed. Under these circumstances, even if the complainant and the deceased ha (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 20 ) incised wound on each of them, was certainly not justified action was not in proportion to the threat perception. Some of the relevant provisions pertaining to ‘self defence’ as embodied in IPC need to be borne in mind. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Under Section 97 every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend his own body, and the body of another person against any offence affecting the human body. Under Section 99 the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm th is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Under Section 100, right of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence which occasions the exercise of such right is an assault which reasonably causes an apprehension of death or grievous hurt, amongst others. Under Section 101, save as provided by Section 99, the right extends to the voluntary causing to the assailment of any harm other than death. Under Section 102 the right once available continues as long as an apprehens of danger to the body continues. When the apprehension of danger has ceased and yet a person continues his attack, he exceeds the right of private defence. Section 103 defines situations where such right can even extend to causing death. y noticed above, it is a case where (Jaswant Singh) and the deceased (Amarjit Singh) the accused, but they were even unarmed. Under these circumstances, even if the complainant and the deceased ha incised wound on each of them, was certainly not justified and the said the threat perception. Some of the relevant provisions pertaining to ‘self defence’ as embodied in IPC need to be borne in mind. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Under t, subject to the restrictions contained in and the body of another person, against any offence affecting the human body. Under Section 99 the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Under Section 100, right of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence which occasions the exercise of such right is an assault which reasonably ath or grievous hurt, amongst others. Under Section 101, save as provided by Section 99, the right extends to the voluntary causing to the assailment of any harm other than death. Under Section 102 the right once available continues as long as an apprehension of danger to the body continues. When the apprehension of danger has ceased and yet a person continues his attack, he exceeds the right of private defence. Section 103 defines situations where such right can even y noticed above, it is a case where not only the complainant (Amarjit Singh) were outnumbered by the accused, but they were even unarmed. Under these circumstances, even if the complainant and the deceased had entered into the property VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) possessed by the accused, the same did not death of Amarjit Singh. State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the complainant/revisionist having been raised by the accused during the course of trial, the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, but this Court is unable to subscribe to the said view, as it has consistently been self-defence even if not taken in the statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross taken into account evidence clearly show t It, needs to be mentioned that accused Gurcharan Singh his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in possession in question though he also admitted that otherwise the property had been purchased by Jaswant Singh (complainant) further pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible possessio 29. A three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in 556 Kashi Ram Vs. State of M.P. accused to raise plea of self “24. The High Court was also availability of plea of self ground that the plea was not specifically taken their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 21 ) possessed by the accused, the same did not death of Amarjit Singh. Though during the course of arguments, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the complainant/revisionist submitted that a specific plea of self having been raised by the accused during the course of trial, the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, but this Court is unable to subscribe to the said view, as it has consistently been defence even if not taken in the statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross-examination, still the same can be taken into account when the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence clearly show that the injuries have been caused in self It, needs to be mentioned that accused Gurcharan Singh his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in possession in question though he also admitted that otherwise the property had been purchased by Jaswant Singh (complainant) further pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for taking forcible possession of the property. A three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in 556 Kashi Ram Vs. State of M.P., while considering the right of an accused to raise plea of self-defence held as under: The High Court was also not right in cr availability of plea of self-defence to the accused persons on the ground that the plea was not specifically taken their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 possessed by the accused, the same did not give them a right to cause Though during the course of arguments, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the submitted that a specific plea of self-defence not having been raised by the accused during the course of trial, the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, but this Court is unable to subscribe to the said view, as it has consistently been held that a plea of defence even if not taken in the statement recorded in terms of examination, still the same can be when the facts and circumstances of the case and the hat the injuries have been caused in self-defence. It, needs to be mentioned that accused Gurcharan Singh, in any case, in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in possession of the property in question though he also admitted that otherwise the property had been purchased by Jaswant Singh (complainant) from one Balwant Singh. He further pleaded therein that the complainant had hired Amarjit Singh for A three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) while considering the right of an defence held as under: not right in criticising and discarding defence to the accused persons on the ground that the plea was not specifically taken by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) and because the accused Prabhu di Though Sectio burden of proof private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall not be available to be cons evidence available in the case by introducing such plea in the cross witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Criminal Pr defence evidence. of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of submissions obtaining in the case (supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person has chosen to a 30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singha Mahapatra vs. ‘self-defence’ in detail touching all the relevant aspects. The broad principles of self herein-under: (1) It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea has not taken it, if the same is avail material on record. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 22 ) and because the accused Prabhu di Though Section 105 of the Evidence Act enacts a rule regarding burden of proof but it does not follow therefrom that the plea of private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall not be available to be considered though made out from the evidence available in the case. A plea of self by introducing such plea in the cross witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or by adducing defence evidence. And, even if the plea is not introduced in any one of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of submissions by relying on the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case as held by this Court in Vijayee Singh's case (supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person has chosen to abstain from the witness box Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) Singha Mahapatra vs. State of West Bengal defence’ in detail touching all the relevant aspects. The broad principles of self-defence as may be culled out from the same are stated under: It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self-defence - If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea - In a given case the Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is avail material on record. and because the accused Prabhu did not enter in the witness box. of the Evidence Act enacts a rule regarding but it does not follow therefrom that the plea of private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall idered though made out from the . A plea of self-defence can be taken by introducing such plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under ocedure Code, 1973 or by adducing And, even if the plea is not introduced in any one of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of by relying on the probabilities and circumstances eld by this Court in Vijayee Singh's case (supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person bstain from the witness box.” (emphasis supplied) 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 333 Ananta Deb State of West Bengal discussed the law regarding defence’ in detail touching all the relevant aspects. The broad defence as may be culled out from the same are stated It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider In a given case the Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) (2) Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of establishing the plea of self showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea on of the material on record. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and AIR 1979 Supreme Court 391 relied. (3) An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. (4) Accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his (5) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that th exercise of the right of private defence. 31. The facts of the case threatened of dispossession but despite the fact their possession, the unarmed complainant and deceased that all of them formed a common intention at the sp inflict a large number of injuries while having a knowledge that such large number of injuries could even cause death. Consequently, even if the injuries specifically attributed to two of the appellants namely Singh @ Ladi and injuries, but both of them would be vicariously liable for the injuries caused collectively having regard to the fact that it is a case of injuries caused (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 23 ) Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea on of the material on record. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and AIR 1979 Supreme Court 391 relied. An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. Accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The facts of the case do suggest that the accused threatened of dispossession, caused injuries to protect their possession, despite the fact that a lesser number of injuries could have protected their possession, they proceeded on to inflict a large number of injuries the unarmed complainant and deceased and as such, it can safely be held that all of them formed a common intention at the sp inflict a large number of injuries while having a knowledge that such large number of injuries could even cause death. Consequently, even if the injuries specifically attributed to two of the appellants namely Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi injuries, but both of them would be vicariously liable for the injuries collectively by all the accused and the resultant death. having regard to the fact that it is a case of injuries caused Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of establishing the plea of defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and AIR 1979 An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. Accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must e accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. suggest that the accused, immediately upon being caused injuries to protect their possession, a lesser number of injuries could have protected proceeded on to inflict a large number of injuries to and as such, it can safely be held that all of them formed a common intention at the spur of the moment to inflict a large number of injuries while having a knowledge that such large number of injuries could even cause death. Consequently, even if the injuries specifically attributed to two of the appellants namely Gurmit Surinder Pal @ Chindi may not be held to fatal injuries, but both of them would be vicariously liable for the injuries by all the accused and the resultant death. However, having regard to the fact that it is a case of injuries caused in self-defence, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) the accused punishable under Section 302 IPC. 1998 SCC(Criminal) 248 accused persons assaulted the dec defence of their property conviction of the appellant under Section offence punishable the accused had exceeded his right of self defence by causing death. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein “1. For causing the death of Balkar Singh, Jarnail Singh, the appellant before us. Modan Singh and Teja offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Teja Singh but upheld the convictions of the appellant and Mohan Singh. Aggrieved thereby, 2. From the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court has recorded a categorical finding that the plot of land on which the incident took place was in exclusive possession of the accused persons and that on t fateful day the deceased along with his brother Avtar Singh (PW father Ajaib Singh (now dead) and one Kulwinder Singh had gone to that plot and started ploughing it with a tractor. The High Court held that it is at that time that the accused persons Singh with the weapons, they were carrying. In the context of the above findings with which we are in complete agreement there cannot be any manner of doubt that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in exercise of deceased and other members of his family had criminally trespassed. However, their such right, though exercised in good faith and without premeditation, did not extend to death as the offence c deceased did not attract Sectio aspect of the matter and the nature of weapons used and the number of (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 24 ) the accused thus cannot be held liable for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998 SCC(Criminal) 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case where accused persons assaulted the deceased in exercise of their right of private defence of their property and had caused his conviction of the appellant under Section 302 offence punishable under Section 304 Part accused had exceeded his right of self defence by causing death. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein-under: For causing the death of Balkar Singh, Jarnail Singh, the appellant before us. Modan Singh and Teja Singh were tried for and convicted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Teja Singh but upheld the convictions of the appellant and Mohan Singh. Aggrieved thereby, only the appellate has filed this appeal. From the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court has recorded a categorical finding that the plot of land on which the incident took place was in exclusive possession of the accused persons and that on t fateful day the deceased along with his brother Avtar Singh (PW father Ajaib Singh (now dead) and one Kulwinder Singh had gone to that plot and started ploughing it with a tractor. The High Court held that it is at that time that the accused persons appeared there and assaulted Balkar Singh with the weapons, they were carrying. In the context of the above findings with which we are in complete agreement there cannot be any manner of doubt that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in exercise of their right of private defence of their property in which the deceased and other members of his family had criminally trespassed. However, their such right, though exercised in good faith and without premeditation, did not extend to death as the offence c deceased did not attract Section 103 Indian Penal Code Considering this aspect of the matter and the nature of weapons used and the number of cannot be held liable for committing an offence Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case where eased in exercise of their right of private and had caused his death, set aside the 302 IPC and convicted him for 304 Part-II IPC, while observing that accused had exceeded his right of self defence by causing death. The under: For causing the death of Balkar Singh, Jarnail Singh, the appellant before Singh were tried for and convicted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Teja Singh but upheld the convictions of the appellant and Mohan Singh. Aggrieved only the appellate has filed this appeal. From the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court has recorded a categorical finding that the plot of land on which the incident took place was in exclusive possession of the accused persons and that on the fateful day the deceased along with his brother Avtar Singh (PW-1), father Ajaib Singh (now dead) and one Kulwinder Singh had gone to that plot and started ploughing it with a tractor. The High Court held that it is appeared there and assaulted Balkar Singh with the weapons, they were carrying. In the context of the above findings with which we are in complete agreement there cannot be any manner of doubt that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in their right of private defence of their property in which the deceased and other members of his family had criminally trespassed. However, their such right, though exercised in good faith and without premeditation, did not extend to death as the offence committed by the Indian Penal Code Considering this aspect of the matter and the nature of weapons used and the number of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) injuries inflicted, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Excepti 3. For the foregoing discussion we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section 304(Part II), Indian Penal Code. For the conviction so recorded we sen is, thus, disposed of.” 32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the case in hand best attract 33. Consequently, DB-2005 filed Chindi respectively, are partly accepted to the extent that their conviction for an offence aside, but they are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with 34 IPC. in self-defence, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the nature of injur and the nature of weapons used and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than two decades back, in our opinion a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years would be ends of justice. It is so ordered. The fine as imposed by the tri unaltered. (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 25 ) injuries inflicted, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 2 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. For the foregoing discussion we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section 304(Part II), Indian Penal Code. For the conviction so recorded we sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appeal is, thus, disposed of.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the case in hand ct an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Consequently, both the appeals i.e. CRA-D filed on behalf of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ respectively, are partly accepted to the extent that their conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC aside, but they are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with 34 IPC. Since it is a case where accused had acted defence, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the nature of injur and the nature of weapons used and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than two decades back, in our opinion a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years would be ends of justice. It is so The fine as imposed by the trial Court shall, however, remain injuries inflicted, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the on 2 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. For the foregoing discussion we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section 304(Part II), Indian Penal Code. For the conviction so recorded we tence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appeal In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the case in hand would at an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. D-63-DB-2005 and CRA-D-90- on behalf of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ respectively, are partly accepted to the extent that their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is set aside, but they are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 is a case where accused had acted defence, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the nature of injuries and the nature of weapons used and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than two decades back, in our opinion a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years would be ends of justice. It is so al Court shall, however, remain VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-63-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-90-DB-2005 (O&M); & CRR-995-2005 (O&M) 34. For the reasons recorded above, on behalf of the complainant/injured respect of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi dismissal and is hereby dismissed. 35. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. 31.01.2025 Vimal (O&M); 2005 (O&M); & 2005 (O&M) ( 26 ) For the reasons recorded above, criminal revision i.e. on behalf of the complainant/injured seeking enhancement of sentence respect of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi dismissal and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: criminal revision i.e. CRR-995-2005 filed seeking enhancement of sentence in respect of Gurmit Singh @ Ladi and Surinder Pal @ Chindi merits A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document