IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 108 SUCHA SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB KHAZAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. conviction and order of sentence Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, FIR No.10 dated 18.08.2021 under Sections 1860, registered at Police Station Ghanie occurrence dated 17.08.2001. The appellants namely Sucha Singh, Khazan Singh and Ladda @ Gurdial Singh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) SINGH Versus PUNJAB (2) SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus PUNJAB Date of decision: August 19 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Mr. Rahul Mohan, Advocate (Amicus Curi for the appellant(s). Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2004 Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, 0 dated 18.08.2021 under Sections , registered at Police Station Ghanie occurrence dated 17.08.2001. The instant appeal appellants namely Sucha Singh, Khazan Singh and Ladda @ Gurdial Singh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-882-DB-2004 .....Appellant .....Respondent CRA-D-286-DB-2005 .....Appellants .....Respondent August 19, 2025 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Amicus Curiae) Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab. is directed against the judgment of dated 30.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur in case 0 dated 18.08.2021 under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, , registered at Police Station Ghanie-ke-Bangar, arising out of an appeals were preferred by accused- appellants namely Sucha Singh, Khazan Singh and Ladda @ Gurdial Singh. Appellant .....Respondent Appellants .....Respondent is directed against the judgment of passed by the learned case Indian Penal Code, arising out of an - Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- 2. appellant No.1 abated. 3. instance of the remaining two appellants Gurdial Singh trial Court:- Name of the accused Sucha Singh Ladda @ Gurdial Singh 4. Singh (PW3) recorded on 18.08.2001 at about 1:30 17.08.2001 at about 8:30 p.m. Gurdial Singh along with their co house of Prakash Singh (PW3). On their knocking, Prakash Singh stepped out, accompanied by his father, Munsha Singh ( brother Mukhtiar Singh (PW4). 5. lesson” to Prakash Singh Gurdial Singh delivered a -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 During the pendency of the appeal No.1 Khazan Singh has expired. The The present judgment, therefore, considers the challenge at the instance of the remaining two appellants Singh, who were convicted and sentenced as follows by the learned Name of the Offence under Section Period of Sentence 302 IPC Imprisonment for life Rs.3,000/ Ladda @ 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life Rs.3,000/ The prosecution case, as unfolded by the statement of Prakash Singh (PW3) recorded on 18.08.2001 at about 1:30 17.08.2001 at about 8:30 p.m., appellants Khazan Singh and La Gurdial Singh along with their co-accused Sucha Singh house of Prakash Singh (PW3). On their knocking, Prakash Singh stepped out, accompanied by his father, Munsha Singh ( brother Mukhtiar Singh (PW4). At that stage, accused Sucha Singh raised a ” to Prakash Singh (PW3). In the incident that followed, Ladda @ Gurdial Singh delivered a datar blow on the head of Munsha Singh above -2005 -2- During the pendency of the appeal (CRA-D-286-DB-2005), expired. The said appeal qua him stands , therefore, considers the challenge at the instance of the remaining two appellants – Sucha Singh and Ladda @ , who were convicted and sentenced as follows by the learned Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Rs.3,000/- RI for six months Rs.3,000/- RI for six months The prosecution case, as unfolded by the statement of Prakash Singh (PW3) recorded on 18.08.2001 at about 1:30 p.m., is that on , appellants Khazan Singh and Ladda @ Sucha Singh came in front of the house of Prakash Singh (PW3). On their knocking, Prakash Singh stepped out, accompanied by his father, Munsha Singh (the deceased), and his At that stage, accused Sucha Singh raised a lalkara to “teach a . In the incident that followed, Ladda @ blow on the head of Munsha Singh above ), him stands , therefore, considers the challenge at the Ladda @ , who were convicted and sentenced as follows by the learned The prosecution case, as unfolded by the statement of Prakash p.m., is that on dda @ came in front of the house of Prakash Singh (PW3). On their knocking, Prakash Singh stepped and his h a . In the incident that followed, Ladda @ Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- the left eye, whereupon delivered anothe being raised, the accused fled. 6. Dr. Sukhdip 11.10 p.m. on (i) placed 3cm above the left eye brow 4 the left ear pinna. Profuse bleeding was present. Wound was bone deep an was kept under observation. Pupils were normal. Patient was conscious. B.P. was 120/78 MM of Hg. Pulse was 80 per minute, regular (ii) lower 1/3rd of left leg 7cm above the left ankle joint. The wound was bone deep. X sharp-edged weapon within (MLR) (Ex.PA) was proved. 7. 18.08.2001 to Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he succumbed around 1 pm. The police were informed; the statement of Prakash Singh (Ex.PA) was recorded at 1:30 p.m. the formal FIR (Ex. -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 the left eye, whereupon he fell to the ground. Khazan Singh then allegedly delivered another datar blow on the left leg/ankle of the deceased. On alarm being raised, the accused fled. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Batala, where Sukhdip Singh (PW1) medico-legally examined him at about 11.10 p.m. on 17.08.2001 and found two incised wounds: Incised wound 14 cm x 2 cm on the left perital region vertically placed 3cm above the left eye brow 4 cm from the mid line and 9 the left ear pinna. Profuse bleeding was present. Wound was bone deep an was kept under observation. Pupils were normal. Patient was conscious. B.P. was 120/78 MM of Hg. Pulse was 80 per minute, regular Incised wound 4 cm x ¾ cm on the na of left leg 7cm above the left ankle joint. The wound was bone deep. X-ray was advised. Both were bone deep, with profuse bl edged weapon within 6 hours duration. (MLR) (Ex.PA) was proved. As the condition of the injured to Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he succumbed 1 pm. The police were informed; the statement of Prakash Singh was recorded at 1:30 p.m. the formal FIR (Ex. -2005 -3- e fell to the ground. Khazan Singh then allegedly blow on the left leg/ankle of the deceased. On alarm The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Batala, where legally examined him at about 17.08.2001 and found two incised wounds:- cm on the left perital region vertically cm from the mid line and 9 cm from the left ear pinna. Profuse bleeding was present. Wound was bone deep and was kept under observation. Pupils were normal. Patient was conscious. B.P. was 120/78 MM of Hg. Pulse was 80 per minute, regular; cm on the natero medical aspect of of left leg 7cm above the left ankle joint. Bleeding was present. ray was advised. with profuse bleeding, attributable to a 6 hours duration. The Medico Legal Report deteriorated, he was referred on to Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he succumbed 1 pm. The police were informed; the statement of Prakash Singh was recorded at 1:30 p.m. the formal FIR (Ex.PA/1 and PA/2) was e fell to the ground. Khazan Singh then allegedly blow on the left leg/ankle of the deceased. On alarm The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Batala, where legally examined him at about cm on the left perital region vertically cm from d was kept under observation. Pupils were normal. Patient was conscious. B.P. tero medical aspect of Bleeding was present. eeding, attributable to a The Medico Legal Report deteriorated, he was referred on to Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he succumbed 1 pm. The police were informed; the statement of Prakash Singh Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- registered at 5:30 p.m.; and the Special Report reached the at 6:35 p.m. 8. leading to the presentation of challan against them. The case was thereafter committed to the Court to Sessions, where the accused were charged for offence under Section not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as witnesses including PW1 Dr. legal examination of the deceased), PW2 Satish Chander [Draftsman who prepared the sit Mukhtiar Singh (eyewitness), and PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh (who conducted the postmortem of the deceased). No.1 on the head was sufficient in the ordinary cours death. In addition, certain formal witnesses were examined and the recovery of datar was stated to have been effected at the instance of the accused. 9. denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication due to village rivalry, asserted that the deceased was not the intended target (the alleged quarrel being with Prakash Singh), an common intention to cause death; fall under Section 304( -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 registered at 5:30 p.m.; and the Special Report reached the After the accused were arrested, investigation leading to the presentation of challan against them. The case was thereafter committed to the Court to Sessions, where the accused were charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as witnesses including PW1 Dr. Sukhdip Singh (who conducted the medico legal examination of the deceased), PW2 Satish Chander [Draftsman who prepared the site plan (Ex.PC)], PW3 Prakash Singh (complainant) and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh (eyewitness), and PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh (who conducted the postmortem of the deceased). PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh opined that injury No.1 on the head was sufficient in the ordinary cours death. In addition, certain formal witnesses were examined and the recovery was stated to have been effected at the instance of the accused. In their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication due to village rivalry, asserted that the deceased was not the intended target (the alleged quarrel being with Prakash Singh), an common intention to cause death; in any event at the fall under Section 304(II) IPC. -2005 -4- registered at 5:30 p.m.; and the Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate After the accused were arrested, investigation was carried out leading to the presentation of challan against them. The case was thereafter committed to the Court to Sessions, where the accused were charged for on 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 Singh (who conducted the medico- legal examination of the deceased), PW2 Satish Chander [Draftsman who e plan (Ex.PC)], PW3 Prakash Singh (complainant) and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh (eyewitness), and PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh (who conducted PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh opined that injury No.1 on the head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In addition, certain formal witnesses were examined and the recovery was stated to have been effected at the instance of the accused. In their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication due to village rivalry, asserted that the deceased was not the intended target (the alleged quarrel being with Prakash Singh), and urged that there was no any event at the highest, the case would Magistrate was carried out leading to the presentation of challan against them. The case was thereafter committed to the Court to Sessions, where the accused were charged for IPC, to which they pleaded 11 - legal examination of the deceased), PW2 Satish Chander [Draftsman who e plan (Ex.PC)], PW3 Prakash Singh (complainant) and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh (eyewitness), and PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh (who conducted PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh opined that injury e of nature to cause death. In addition, certain formal witnesses were examined and the recovery In their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication due to village rivalry, asserted that the deceased was not the intended target (the d urged that there was no highest, the case would Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- 10. learned trial Court, finding the ocular account consistent with the medical evidence and relying upon the recovery, returned findings of guilt. 11. behalf of the appellants: (I) p.m. on 17.08.2001; the deceased was shifted to the hospital, where his medic-legal examination was died on 18.08.2001 at about 1 p.m. Yet, the statement of PW3 Prakash Singh was recorded only at about 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001. The formal FIR (Ex.PA/1 and PA/2 reached the Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. Learned unexplained delay afforded opportunity tutoring. (II) his deposition categoricall attendants disclosed any facts of It was asserted by the learned attack by known persons, such silence was abnormal and unnatural clearly went to the root of the case of the prosecution (III) Court to the cross -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, finding the ocular account consistent with the medical evidence and relying upon the recovery, returned findings of guilt. Learned Amicus Curiae made the following submissions on behalf of the appellants:- The occurrence was stated to have taken place at about 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the deceased was shifted to the hospital, where his legal examination was conducted at 11:10 p.m. on the same night; he died on 18.08.2001 at about 1 p.m. Yet, the statement of PW3 Prakash Singh was recorded only at about 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001. The formal FIR PA/1 and PA/2) was registered at 5:30 p.m., and the Special Repo reached the Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. Learned unexplained delay afforded opportunity for deliberation, embellishment and It was also further argued that PW1 Dr. his deposition categorically admitted that neither the patients nor his disclosed any facts of assault by anyone, much less It was asserted by the learned Amicus Curiae attack by known persons, such silence was abnormal and unnatural clearly went to the root of the case of the prosecution Learned Amicus Curiae, while drawing the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of PW1 Dr. Sukhdip -2005 -5- The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, finding the ocular account consistent with the medical evidence and relying upon the recovery, returned findings of guilt. made the following submissions on The occurrence was stated to have taken place at about 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the deceased was shifted to the hospital, where his conducted at 11:10 p.m. on the same night; he died on 18.08.2001 at about 1 p.m. Yet, the statement of PW3 Prakash Singh was recorded only at about 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001. The formal FIR ) was registered at 5:30 p.m., and the Special Report reached the Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the for deliberation, embellishment and It was also further argued that PW1 Dr. Sukhdip Singh during y admitted that neither the patients nor his assault by anyone, much less the appellants. Amicus Curiae that in a case of murderous attack by known persons, such silence was abnormal and unnatural, and clearly went to the root of the case of the prosecution. , while drawing the attention of this Sukhdip Singh, argued that his The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, finding the ocular account consistent with the medical made the following submissions on The occurrence was stated to have taken place at about 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the deceased was shifted to the hospital, where his conducted at 11:10 p.m. on the same night; he died on 18.08.2001 at about 1 p.m. Yet, the statement of PW3 Prakash Singh was recorded only at about 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001. The formal FIR rt argued that the for deliberation, embellishment and Singh during y admitted that neither the patients nor his the appellants. that in a case of murderous and , while drawing the attention of this Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- witness accepted that the ankle injury (injury No.2) friendly hands cannot be ruled out the prosecution that both injuries were necessarily blows. (IV) Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh the deceased, and who were, as per the case of the prosecution, present when their father i.e. the deceased was attacked. that strangely, none of these their father and raise hue and cry sufficient to attract neighbours; though the police station kms away, they lodged no report that night and remained silent only after the death, which was against normal human conduct their presence at the scene of crime. It was also submitted that as per the site plan (Ex.PC complainant party. The prosecution proved no dependable source of light at the scene of crime. In such circumstances also, identification of the assailants was extremely doubtful. (V) attributed to Sucha Singh was to teach a lesson to Prakash Singh (PW3); the deceased intervened. was not the intended target, no common intention to cause his death -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 witness accepted that the ankle injury (injury No.2) friendly hands cannot be ruled out. This clearly undermined the assertion of the prosecution that both injuries were necessarily It was further argued that both the alleged eyewitnesses PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh were none other than the sons of the deceased, and who were, as per the case of the prosecution, present when their father i.e. the deceased was attacked. that strangely, none of these two eyewitnesses made any attempt to protect their father and raise hue and cry sufficient to attract neighbours; though the police station lay on the route of the hospital and the hospital was about 4 they lodged no report that night and remained silent only after the death, which was against normal human conduct their presence at the scene of crime. It was also submitted that as per the site PC), the occurrence took place outside the house of the complainant party. The prosecution proved no dependable source of light at of crime. In such circumstances also, identification of the assailants was extremely doubtful. Furthermore, learned Amicus Curiae attributed to Sucha Singh was to teach a lesson to Prakash Singh (PW3); the deceased intervened. Thus, even as per the prosecution version, the deceased was not the intended target, no common intention to cause his death -2005 -6- witness accepted that the ankle injury (injury No.2) on the deceased with . This clearly undermined the assertion of the prosecution that both injuries were necessarily from sharp-edged weapon rgued that both the alleged eyewitnesses PW3 were none other than the sons of the deceased, and who were, as per the case of the prosecution, present when their father i.e. the deceased was attacked. Learned Amicus Curiae argued eyewitnesses made any attempt to protect their father and raise hue and cry sufficient to attract neighbours; though the lay on the route of the hospital and the hospital was about 4 they lodged no report that night and remained silent only after the death, which was against normal human conduct, seriously casting doubt on their presence at the scene of crime. It was also submitted that as per the site place outside the house of the complainant party. The prosecution proved no dependable source of light at of crime. In such circumstances also, identification of the Amicus Curiae argued that the lalkara attributed to Sucha Singh was to teach a lesson to Prakash Singh (PW3); the Thus, even as per the prosecution version, the deceased was not the intended target, no common intention to cause his death could be with . This clearly undermined the assertion of edged weapon rgued that both the alleged eyewitnesses PW3 were none other than the sons of the deceased, and who were, as per the case of the prosecution, present when argued eyewitnesses made any attempt to protect their father and raise hue and cry sufficient to attract neighbours; though the lay on the route of the hospital and the hospital was about 4 they lodged no report that night and remained silent only after the , seriously casting doubt on their presence at the scene of crime. It was also submitted that as per the site place outside the house of the complainant party. The prosecution proved no dependable source of light at of crime. In such circumstances also, identification of the lalkara attributed to Sucha Singh was to teach a lesson to Prakash Singh (PW3); the Thus, even as per the prosecution version, the deceased could be Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- inferred. At the highest, if any offence was made out on accepted facts, it would be under acquittal. (VI) Mukhtiar Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were entrusted witnesses; their testimony corroborated by independent witnesses and marred by omissions and conduct, was unsafe to rely upon. any injuries on both these witnesses, despite being at arm’s length from their father, further eroded their credibility. 12. of the FIR by arguing that the immediate priority of t treatment and save life of the deceased; formalities cannot override the urgency of medical care. prosecution version, therefore, doubtful 13. clearly came across as being consistent and natural and was further corroborated by PW4 Mukhtiar Singh. testimonies were inevitable and would in no manner create any dent in the case of the prosecution. 14. submitted that the ocular testimony found due corroboration with the medical evidence. The fatal skull injury was caused by a sharp -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 inferred. At the highest, if any offence was made out on accepted facts, it under Section 304(II) IPC; otherwise, the appellants deserved It was lastly argued that both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were entrusted witnesses; their testimony corroborated by independent witnesses and marred by omissions and conduct, was unsafe to rely upon. any injuries on both these witnesses, despite being at arm’s length from their father, further eroded their credibility. Per contra, learned State counsel justified the delay in lodging of the FIR by arguing that the immediate priority of t treatment and save life of the deceased; formalities cannot override the urgency of medical care. The timeline did not, by itself, render the prosecution version, therefore, doubtful. It was further argued that PW3 Prakash Sing clearly came across as being consistent and natural and was further corroborated by PW4 Mukhtiar Singh. testimonies were inevitable and would in no manner create any dent in the case of the prosecution. While referring to the medical evidence, learned State counsel submitted that the ocular testimony found due corroboration with the medical evidence. The fatal skull injury was caused by a sharp -2005 -7- inferred. At the highest, if any offence was made out on accepted facts, it ) IPC; otherwise, the appellants deserved was lastly argued that both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were entrusted witnesses; their testimony corroborated by independent witnesses and marred by omissions and conduct, was unsafe to rely upon. The absence of any injuries on both these witnesses, despite being at arm’s length from their , learned State counsel justified the delay in lodging of the FIR by arguing that the immediate priority of the family was to secure treatment and save life of the deceased; formalities cannot override the The timeline did not, by itself, render the It was further argued that PW3 Prakash Singh’s testimony clearly came across as being consistent and natural and was further Minor discrepancies in their testimonies were inevitable and would in no manner create any dent in the While referring to the medical evidence, learned State counsel submitted that the ocular testimony found due corroboration with the medical evidence. The fatal skull injury was caused by a sharp-edged inferred. At the highest, if any offence was made out on accepted facts, it ) IPC; otherwise, the appellants deserved was lastly argued that both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were entrusted witnesses; their testimony corroborated by independent witnesses and absence of any injuries on both these witnesses, despite being at arm’s length from their , learned State counsel justified the delay in lodging he family was to secure treatment and save life of the deceased; formalities cannot override the The timeline did not, by itself, render the h’s testimony clearly came across as being consistent and natural and was further Minor discrepancies in their testimonies were inevitable and would in no manner create any dent in the While referring to the medical evidence, learned State counsel submitted that the ocular testimony found due corroboration with the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- weapon and was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. asserted that non Singh by the complainant and his brother PW4 Muktiar Singh would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as their time was immediate treatment of their injured father. Furthermore, recovery of the datar at the instance of the accused provided additional corroboration. A prayer was, therefore, made for dismissal of the instant appeals. 15. evidence on record. 16. (a) satisfactorily explained; (b) Singh and their non the ocular version; (c) prevailing conditions; (d) Section 34 IPC particularly lalkara; (e) establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; or -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 weapon and was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. asserted that non-narration of the history of assault to PW1 Dr. Singh by the complainant and his brother PW4 Muktiar Singh would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as their time was immediate treatment of their injured father. Furthermore, recovery at the instance of the accused provided additional corroboration. A prayer was, therefore, made for dismissal of the instant appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The following issues arise for determination: Whether the delay and sequence in lodging the FIR stands satisfactorily explained; Whether the conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh and their non-disclosure to the doctor/police impair the credibility of r version; Whether identification at the scene is free from doubt in the prevailing conditions; Whether the prosecution proved common intention under Section 34 IPC particularly qua Sucha Singh, whose role is limited to a Whether on the whole, the prosecution was unsuccessful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; or -2005 -8- weapon and was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. He also narration of the history of assault to PW1 Dr. Sukhdip Singh by the complainant and his brother PW4 Muktiar Singh would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as their priority at that point of time was immediate treatment of their injured father. Furthermore, recovery at the instance of the accused provided additional corroboration. A prayer was, therefore, made for dismissal of the instant appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the r determination:- Whether the delay and sequence in lodging the FIR stands Whether the conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar disclosure to the doctor/police impair the credibility of Whether identification at the scene is free from doubt in the Whether the prosecution proved common intention under Sucha Singh, whose role is limited to a the whole, the prosecution was unsuccessful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; or He also ip Singh by the complainant and his brother PW4 Muktiar Singh would not at that point of time was immediate treatment of their injured father. Furthermore, recovery at the instance of the accused provided additional corroboration. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Whether the delay and sequence in lodging the FIR stands Whether the conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar disclosure to the doctor/police impair the credibility of Whether identification at the scene is free from doubt in the Whether the prosecution proved common intention under Sucha Singh, whose role is limited to a the whole, the prosecution was unsuccessful in Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- (f) 17. MLR of the deceased was recorded as 11:1 1 p.m. on 18.08.2001. recorded at 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001, leading to the registration of formal FIR (Ex.PA/1 and PA/2 Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. While delay is not plausible and cogent explanation because the FIR is expected to be the earliest version. Here, despite hospital, there is no contemporaneous intimation to the police; even death at a referral hospital, the hours later. The explanation that the the facts, fully account for the silence during the night and again after the death – particularly when the route to the hospital passed As per the case of the prosecution, both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, sons of the deceased however, strangely not even one of the two bothered to report the crime to the police even after the deceased had been referred to the referral hospital at Amritsar. The hiatus is of such quality and length as to perm and embellishment. Amicus Curiae -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 Whether benefit of doubt must e The occurrence was at 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the time of MLR of the deceased was recorded as 11:10 1 p.m. on 18.08.2001. The statement of PW3 Prakash Singh (Ex. recorded at 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001, leading to the registration of formal PA/1 and PA/2) at 5:30 p.m. The Special Report reached the Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. While delay is not plausible and cogent explanation because the FIR is expected to be the earliest version. Here, despite the injured being taken to a Government hospital, there is no contemporaneous intimation to the police; even a referral hospital, the formal machinery was set in motion only The explanation that the family prioritized treatment, cannot, the facts, fully account for the silence during the night and again after the particularly when the route to the hospital passed As per the case of the prosecution, both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, sons of the deceased, witnessed the occurrence in question, however, strangely not even one of the two bothered to report the crime to the police even after the deceased had been referred to the referral hospital at The hiatus is of such quality and length as to perm and embellishment. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants on this score. -2005 -9- Whether benefit of doubt must enure to the appellants. The occurrence was at 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the time of 0 p.m. followed by death around The statement of PW3 Prakash Singh (Ex.PA) was recorded at 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001, leading to the registration of formal ) at 5:30 p.m. The Special Report reached the Magistrate at 6:35 p.m. While delay is not per se fatal, it demands a plausible and cogent explanation because the FIR is expected to be the the injured being taken to a Government hospital, there is no contemporaneous intimation to the police; even after formal machinery was set in motion only family prioritized treatment, cannot, in the facts, fully account for the silence during the night and again after the particularly when the route to the hospital passed the police station. As per the case of the prosecution, both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 witnessed the occurrence in question, however, strangely not even one of the two bothered to report the crime to the police even after the deceased had been referred to the referral hospital at The hiatus is of such quality and length as to permit a deliberation We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the learned for the appellants on this score. The occurrence was at 8:30 p.m. on 17.08.2001; the time of p.m. followed by death around ) was recorded at 1:30 p.m. on 18.08.2001, leading to the registration of formal ) at 5:30 p.m. The Special Report reached the s a plausible and cogent explanation because the FIR is expected to be the the injured being taken to a Government after formal machinery was set in motion only in the facts, fully account for the silence during the night and again after the the police station. As per the case of the prosecution, both PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 witnessed the occurrence in question, however, strangely not even one of the two bothered to report the crime to the police even after the deceased had been referred to the referral hospital at it a deliberation We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the learned Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- 18. nor the attendants i.e. PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh disclosed anything about the assault to the doctor. targeted attack and that too by known villagers, non factum of assault (let alone names) unnatural omission. Coupled with the admitted failure to alert the police during the night despite presence at the hospital and the absence of any attempt by PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh to intervene or to raise a hue and cry attracting neighbours, the conduct appears inconsistent with normal human behaviour. intrinsic worth of the ocular account and render the presence of Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh at the scene of crime doubtful. 19. house of the definitive source of lighting at 8:30 p.m. in the month of August. settings, particularly identification in the dark is and familiarity to conte however, when the very presence of the eyewitnesses is already under doubt and the FIR -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 Pertinently, as per PW1 Dr. Sukhdip nor the attendants i.e. PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh disclosed anything about the assault to the doctor. targeted attack and that too by known villagers, non factum of assault (let alone names) at the earliest medical interface is an unnatural omission. Coupled with the admitted failure to alert the police e night despite presence at the hospital and the absence of any attempt by PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh to intervene or to raise a hue and cry attracting neighbours, the conduct appears inconsistent with normal human behaviour. These features c intrinsic worth of the ocular account and render the presence of Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh at the scene of crime doubtful. As per the site plan (Ex.PC), the incident took place outside the house of the complainant party. The prosecution was unable to prove any definitive source of lighting at 8:30 p.m. in the month of August. particularly in the absence of proof of functional light sources, identification in the dark is hard. No doubt, and familiarity to contend that identification was nonethe however, when the very presence of the eyewitnesses is already under doubt FIR itself is delayed, absence -2005 -10- Sukhdip Singh, neither the patient nor the attendants i.e. PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh disclosed anything about the assault to the doctor. In a case of alleged targeted attack and that too by known villagers, non-disclosure of even the at the earliest medical interface is an unnatural omission. Coupled with the admitted failure to alert the police e night despite presence at the hospital and the absence of any attempt by PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh to intervene or to raise a hue and cry attracting neighbours, the conduct appears inconsistent These features cumulatively corrode the intrinsic worth of the ocular account and render the presence of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh at the scene of crime doubtful. ), the incident took place outside the complainant party. The prosecution was unable to prove any definitive source of lighting at 8:30 p.m. in the month of August. In rural proof of functional light sources, No doubt, the State relied on relationship nd that identification was nonetheless possible, however, when the very presence of the eyewitnesses is already under doubt of proof of lighting becomes a Singh, neither the patient nor the attendants i.e. PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh In a case of alleged disclosure of even the at the earliest medical interface is an unnatural omission. Coupled with the admitted failure to alert the police e night despite presence at the hospital and the absence of any attempt by PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh to intervene or to raise a hue and cry attracting neighbours, the conduct appears inconsistent umulatively corrode the PW3 ), the incident took place outside the complainant party. The prosecution was unable to prove any In rural proof of functional light sources, he State relied on relationship less possible, however, when the very presence of the eyewitnesses is already under doubt of lighting becomes a Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- significant infirmity. The possibility of mistaken identity cann excluded. 20. head injury, sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. That medical conclusion, however, does not, by itself, point to the authorship of the injury. The prosecution case doubtful presence/ identification manner of assault and the roles attributed. 21. evidence. In the backdrop of unreliable ocular evidence, doubtful presence and identification, and the infirmities note conviction. In light, evidence of recovery cannot substitute for participat beyond reasonable doubt. 22. guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (i) significant and inadequately explained delay (ii) failure to disclose a history of assault by named assailants at the first opportunity – conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh ordinary human behaviour; (iv) identification reasonable and substantial. -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 significant infirmity. The possibility of mistaken identity cann PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh attributed death of the deceased to the head injury, sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. That medical conclusion, however, does not, by itself, point to the authorship of the injury. ecution case, when weighed with the unnatural omissions and the doubtful presence/ identification, reinforces reasonable doubt about the exact manner of assault and the roles attributed. The alleged recovery of datar evidence. In the backdrop of unreliable ocular evidence, doubtful presence and identification, and the infirmities noted, such recovery cannot sustain a In light, evidence of recovery cannot substitute for participat beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the concatenation of (i) significant and inadequately explained delay (ii) failure to disclose a history of assault by named assailants at the first – the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh ordinary human behaviour; (iv) non-proof of lig identification at night unsafe, leaves us with a residual doubt, which is both reasonable and substantial. -2005 -11- significant infirmity. The possibility of mistaken identity cannot be safely PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh attributed death of the deceased to the head injury, sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. That medical conclusion, however, does not, by itself, point to the authorship of the injury. when weighed with the unnatural omissions and the , reinforces reasonable doubt about the exact datar is, at best, corroborative evidence. In the backdrop of unreliable ocular evidence, doubtful presence , such recovery cannot sustain a In light, evidence of recovery cannot substitute for participation Criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to establish In the present case, the concatenation of (i) significant and inadequately explained delay in lodging the FIR; (ii) failure to disclose a history of assault by named assailants at the first the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital; (iii) conduct of PW3 Prakash Singh and PW4 Mukhtiar Singh, inconsistent with proof of lighting rendering at night unsafe, leaves us with a residual doubt, which is both ot be safely PW5 Dr. Guriqbal Singh attributed death of the deceased to the head injury, sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. That medical conclusion, however, does not, by itself, point to the authorship of the injury. when weighed with the unnatural omissions and the , reinforces reasonable doubt about the exact is, at best, corroborative evidence. In the backdrop of unreliable ocular evidence, doubtful presence , such recovery cannot sustain a ion Criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to establish In the present case, the concatenation of in lodging the FIR; (ii) failure to disclose a history of assault by named assailants at the first ; (iii) inconsistent with hting rendering at night unsafe, leaves us with a residual doubt, which is both Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-882- 23. these infirmities. The prosecution version degree that the law demands for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 IPC. 24. conviction of the appellants is set aside. 25. August 19, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur -DB-2004 and CRA-D-286-DB-2005 The learned trial Court overlooked the cumulative effect these infirmities. The prosecution version does not inspire confidence to the degree that the law demands for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 In sequel to the above, the instant appeals are allowed and the conviction of the appellants is set aside. Copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case August 19, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2005 -12- verlooked the cumulative effect of does not inspire confidence to the degree that the law demands for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 , the instant appeals are allowed and the laced on the file of the connected case. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No of does not inspire confidence to the degree that the law demands for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 , the instant appeals are allowed and the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh