CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana 1. Baljit Singh State of Punjab 2. Dinesh Chaturvedi State of Punjab CORAM: Present: GURVINDER 1. This judgment shall dispose of above judgment dated 14.01.2005 Ludhiana, (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CR Baljit Singh Versus Punjab CRA Dinesh Chaturvedi Versus Punjab Date of Decision HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-85- Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-337 Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned judgment dated 14.01.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is being assailed. Vide impugned judgment, both the In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) … Appellant ... Respondent CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) … Appellant ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 13.02.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, -DB-2005. Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, 337-2005. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. mentioned two appeals, wherein passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, being assailed. Vide impugned judgment, both the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) appellants namely Baljit Singh and guilty and sentenced as under: Accused/Appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi Under Section 302 IPC Under Section 27(i) of the Arms Act Accused/Appellant Baljit Singh Under Section 302/34 IPC 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. Station Sadar basis of statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on 30.03.1999, he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece Alisha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Sumo bearing registration No. from Ludhiana to Jalandhar Bridge, a police official accordingly stopped the same. The police off Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was alighting from the same, another police official namely C who was standing nearby, which they will shoot said police officials (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 2 ) appellants namely Baljit Singh and Dinesh Chaturvedi have been held guilty and sentenced as under: Accused/Appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months Under Section 27(i) of the - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months Accused/Appellant Baljit Singh Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months The matter arises out of FIR No.140 dated 30.03.1999 registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, under Sections 302/34 IPC statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on , he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece isha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Sumo bearing registration No.HR-01F-5676. from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, at about 5.00 PM when they were near Sutlej Bridge, a police official signaled them accordingly stopped the same. The police off Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was alighting from the same, another police official namely C who was standing nearby, shouted loudly telling him to come out failing which they will shoot. While he was coming out of the vehicle, both the said police officials shot at his Tata Sumo and one of the shots hit his wife Dinesh Chaturvedi have been held To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of and in default of payment of fine to undergo To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a and in default of payment of fine to undergo To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of and in default of payment of fine to undergo 140 dated 30.03.1999 registered at Police Ludhiana, under Sections 302/34 IPC (Ex.PA/1) on the statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on , he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece isha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Tata 5676. While on their way-back at about 5.00 PM when they were near Sutlej them to stop the vehicle and he accordingly stopped the same. The police official namely PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was alighting from the same, another police official namely C-1 Baljit Singh, shouted loudly telling him to come out failing . While he was coming out of the vehicle, both the his Tata Sumo and one of the shots hit his wife VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) Shaveta on the right side of her chest. several persons were attracted to the spot, who sugges to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta taken to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the hospital. The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. 3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the place of occurrence and also the hospital. S had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got subjected to post recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Chaturvedi along rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were possession and 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 26.06.1999 order dated framed charges against both the ac Section 302 IPC on under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on The accused 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 3 ) Shaveta on the right side of her chest. On account of their hue & cry, several persons were attracted to the spot, who sugges to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police swung place of occurrence and also the hospital. S had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got subjected to post-mortem examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Chaturvedi alongwith one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges as well as rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were possession and sent for ballistic examination. conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana 26.06.1999, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.08.1999. Learned Additional framed charges against both the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 07.09.1999. Separate charges for offence punishable under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on The accused, however, pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: On account of their hue & cry, several persons were attracted to the spot, who suggested the complainant to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta was to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. swung into action and visited the place of occurrence and also the hospital. Since the complainant’s wife had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rifle allotted to Dinesh empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges as well as rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were taken into sent for ballistic examination. challan was presented against both the accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana , who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana cused for offence punishable under 07.09.1999. Separate charges for offence punishable under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on 24.05.2000. and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 17 The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:- VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) PW-1 Vinod recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of occurrence while he Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo by the accused and and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. He stated that Balji stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could not survive. PW-2 Dr. S.K.Sharma, had conducted post Shaveta wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of Shaveta the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante the ordinary course of nature. PW-3 Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was produced in the Court and the ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the same, wherein she stated that on her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter his maternal uncle w some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they would be shot. S on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 4 ) Vinod Kumar (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations got recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of occurrence while he alongwith his family was returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. a Sumo by the accused and was told to come out of the vehicle and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. He stated that Baljit Singh also fired a shot, but it missed. stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could not survive. Dr. S.K.Sharma, who alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shaveta on 31.03.1999, proved the post wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of Shaveta and opined that the cause of death was the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause immediate death in the ordinary course of nature. Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was produced in the Court and the ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the same, wherein she stated that on 30.03.1999, while she alongwith her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter his maternal uncle was returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they would be shot. She stated that her aunt was shot at by the accused on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu Kumar (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations got recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of alongwith his family was returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. was told to come out of the vehicle and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. Singh also fired a shot, but it missed. He stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan mortem examination on the dead body of on 31.03.1999, proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PD, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of and opined that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which mortem and were sufficient to cause immediate death in Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was produced in the Court and the learned trial Court after ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the 30.03.1999, while she alongwith her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter of returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials told his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they he stated that her aunt was shot at by the accused on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire any s PW-4 HC Sukhpal Singh stated that on body of Shaveta to the hospital for post that after the same was conducted, over a parcel o further handed over to SI Balbir Singh PW-5 Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). PW-6 Constable Baljit evidence his affidavit Ex. 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for depositing the same due to returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated that thereafter on the objections had which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. PW-7 HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. PW-8 HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on posted at Police Post know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where police officials were already present and that even the accused (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 5 ) gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire any shot, but had told his companion to shoot. HC Sukhpal Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he taken the dead body of Shaveta to the hospital for post that after the same was conducted, over a parcel of clothes, one vial and a video film, which he further handed over to SI Balbir Singh Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). Constable Baljit Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW6/A, wherein he deposed that on 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh had handed over property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, but due to certain objections having been returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated that thereafter on 07.04.1999, MHC Baldev the objections had again handed over him the case property, which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on posted at Police Post Laudowal, he and ASI Avtar Singh came to know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where police officials were already present and that even the accused gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not hot, but had told his companion to shoot. 30.03.1999, he taken the dead body of Shaveta to the hospital for post-mortem examination and that after the same was conducted, the hospital authorities handed f clothes, one vial and a video film, which he further handed over to SI Balbir Singh. Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered into PW6/A, wherein he deposed that on had handed over to him the case property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, but having been raised by the said office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated MHC Baldev Singh after removing handed over him the case property, which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, while he was Laudowal, he and ASI Avtar Singh came to know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where police officials were already present and that even the accused VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) were present ther accused memo Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 SI Balbir Singh stated that on SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a wireless message on the said day regarding the incident in question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar his be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh for getting post request letter into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which wer stated also He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan presented against the accused. PW-10 Constable Dalbara Singh, affidavit Ex.PW 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev property including etc. Patiala said Singh. He stated th Singh after removing the objections had (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 6 ) were present there and that he took into possession one rifle accused Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/A. SI Balbir Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a reless message on the said day regarding the incident in question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar his statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PA/ be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh for getting post-mortem examination conducted alongwith his request letters Ex.PB & PC. He further stated regarding taking into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR-01F-5576 belonging to the complainant. He also stated that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. stated as regards the entire investigation conducted by him and also proved various memos prepared during course of the same. He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan presented against the accused. Constable Dalbara Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-10/A in evidence 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh had handed over him the case property including clothes of the deceased Shaveta, etc. for depositing the same in the office of Patiala, but due to certain objections said office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated that thereafter on 0 Singh after removing the objections had and that he took into possession one rifle from Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges vide recovery 30.03.1999, he was posted as SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a reless message on the said day regarding the incident in question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar and got recorded on the basis of which FIR Ex.PA/2 came to be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh mortem examination conducted alongwith his . He further stated regarding taking into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration 5576 belonging to the complainant. He also stated that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which e taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-9/C. He the entire investigation conducted by him and various memos prepared during course of the same. He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan was who is a formal witness, tendered his 10/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on Singh had handed over him the case clothes of the deceased Shaveta, blood samples for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, , but due to certain objections having been raised by the office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev at thereafter on 05.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh after removing the objections had again handed over to him various memos prepared during course of the same. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) the case property, which he deposited in the office of Examiner, Patiala remained in his posse PW-11 SI Harbhajan Singh stated that on as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR MHC Baldev of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the officials after exami handed that he PW-12 ASI Avtar Singh stated that on Incharge Police Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where they noticed that a mob had gathered accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and that a rifle, 4 live cartridge and from Dinesh Chaturvedi and memo Ex.PW PW-13 SI Joginder Singh stated that on as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 7 ) the case property, which he deposited in the office of Examiner, Patiala on the same day and that as long as remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. SI Harbhajan Singh stated that on 05.04.1999 while he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR MHC Baldev Singh with a direction to take the same to the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the officials concerned for its examination after examination by FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, handed back to Malkhana of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that he handed over the report of FSL to SHO Balbir Singh. ASI Avtar Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Lodewal falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where they noticed that a mob had gathered accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and that a rifle, 4 live cartridge and 1 empty cartridge were from Dinesh Chaturvedi and taken into possession memo Ex.PW-9/C. SI Joginder Singh stated that on 03.05.1999, when he was posted as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the the case property, which he deposited in the office of Chemical on the same day and that as long as the parcels ssion, the same were not tampered with. 05.04.1999 while he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01H-5576 by Singh with a direction to take the same to the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the for its examination. He further stated that nation by FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, the vehicle was Malkhana of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and handed over the report of FSL to SHO Balbir Singh. 30.03.1999, he was posted as Post Lodewal falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day, upon receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other police officials proceeded to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where they noticed that a mob had gathered. He further stated that the 2 accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and 1 empty cartridge were recovered taken into possession vide recovery 03.05.1999, when he was posted as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) investigation of the statement of HC Malkit Singh of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev recorded statements of some other officials and that upon completion of investigation, he had presented the final report against the accused. PW-14 Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other officers. PW-15 HC Malkit Singh MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials stated that on Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He further s alongwith 5 PW-16 Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post Ladhowal examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. PW-17 HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 8 ) investigation of the case during the course of which, he recorded the statement of HC Malkit Singh and had also received the report of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev recorded statements of some other officials and that upon completion of investigation, he had presented the final report against the accused. Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-14/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other officers. HC Malkit Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials stated that on 30.03.1999, Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He further stated that both of them had been issued alongwith 5 live cartridges each. Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post Ladhowal on 20.11.1998. During the course of her cross examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-17/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that the case during the course of which, he recorded and had also received the report of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev Singh and had recorded statements of some other officials and that upon completion of investigation, he had presented the final report Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered evidence, wherein he deposed that on 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa 30.03.1999, he was posted as MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials. He , Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a naka on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He tated that both of them had been issued .303 rifles Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, she was posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post 20.11.1998. During the course of her cross- examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit 17/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) on 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges etc. him during the course of investigation. 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were sent through Constable Baljit office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. 6. The prosecution Ex.PY) closed its evidence. 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution in from the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: holding a the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted from Ludiana and he was un the Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was not carrying any rifle nor any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TAT Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same vehicle, where she died. ASI Avtar Singh PW and the Police came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 9 ) 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges etc. He also stated with regard to the other articles deposited with him during the course of investigation. 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were sent through Constable Baljit Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. The prosecution after tendering into evidence report of FSL (Ex.PX Ex.PY) closed its evidence. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract om the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: “I alongwith PHG Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Chaturvedi was holding a Naka on the bridge of river Sutl the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted from Ludiana and he was un-traceable. During the course of the he Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was not carrying any rifle nor any rifle was issued to me and I did not fire any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TAT Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same vehicle, where she died. A mob of 300 persons reached the hospital and in the meantime ASI Avtar Singh PW and the Police force also reached there. The bob came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges He also stated with regard to the other articles deposited with him during the course of investigation. He further stated that on 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, which were deposited on 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. into evidence report of FSL (Ex.PX and Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were wherein they denied the case of and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract om the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section I alongwith PHG Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Chaturvedi was on the bridge of river Sutlej. We were required to check the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted ble. During the course of the Naka, he Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was any rifle was issued to me and I did not fire any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TATA Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same A mob of 300 persons reached the hospital and in the meantime force also reached there. The bob came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar PW and mob on th vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am innocent. did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against me is vitiated and the same void 8. Accused – Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was Constable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order of the complied with nor reason has been given for non provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.” 9. The accused, however, 10. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop by the accused at a Chaturvedi his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 10 ) including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar PW and mob on the Investigating Officer. I became the victim of the vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am innocent. I was not challenged in this case and the committing Mag did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against me is vitiated and the same void-ab-initio. Dinesh Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was onstable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order the Constable that prevailed. Section 197 complied with nor reason has been given for non provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this ” The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop by the accused at a naka, it was Baljit Singh, who told co Chaturvedi to shoot and pursuant to which Dinesh Chaturvedi his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar e Investigating Officer. I became the victim of the vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am I was not challenged in this case and the committing Magistrate did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against initio.” Dinesh Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under: I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was onstable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order Section 197 Cr.P.C has not been complied with nor reason has been given for non-compliance. The provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this did not lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, returned its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop Singh, who told co-accused Dinesh to shoot and pursuant to which Dinesh Chaturvedi fired from his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable un 27(i) of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said charge. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial Court. 11. Learned senior cou submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired sh to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has further been submitted that even the post on the dead b the dead body are in the nature of infact be result of one firearm shot only. submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by appellant Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would direction under the given circumstances. (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) g committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial Court further held accused Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable un of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said Aggrieved by the said judgment dated accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired sh to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has further been submitted that even the post-mortem examination on the dead body of complainant’s wife shows that the dead body are in the nature of an entry and exit wound result of one firearm shot only. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would direction under the given circumstances. g committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under The trial Court further held accused Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 14.01.2005, both the accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial nsel appearing on behalf of appellant Baljit Singh submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired shots has been found to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has mortem examination conducted ody of complainant’s wife shows that the 2 injuries found on an entry and exit wound, which would Learned senior counsel further submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would be bound by any such VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) 12. Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any fire arm shot fired from the rifle inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body and that although some pieces are stated to the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. Learned counsel made the following two additional submissions: (i) That even if the factum of firing case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the vehicle, which had the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these c is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties believing in good faith that it was necess fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC (ii) That in any case, the entire proceedings would be sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was before launching prosecution against the ap that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of their official duties without any ill good faith (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing ce on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any fire arm shot fired from the rifle allotted to inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body and that although some pieces are stated to the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi has further made the following two additional submissions: That even if the factum of firing is taken to be correct, still it is a case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the vehicle, which had its glasses tinted and some child were sitting in the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these c is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties believing in good faith that it was necess fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC That in any case, the entire proceedings would be sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was before launching prosecution against the ap that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of their official duties without any ill-will or mala fide and that too in good faith. Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing ce on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any allotted to appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body and that although some pieces are stated to have been sent to the FSL, but the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi has further made the following two additional submissions: is taken to be correct, still it is a case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform naka duty and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the its glasses tinted and some child were sitting in the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these circumstances it is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties believing in good faith that it was necessary to fire, which would be fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC; That in any case, the entire proceedings would be nonest, as no sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was sought or accorded before launching prosecution against the appellants despite the fact that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of will or mala fide and that too in the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) 13. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the complainant (Vinod Kumar) of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained unimpeached corroborates the case of prosecution, recorded by the learned trial Court 14. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 15. The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the outset. The prosecution has examined alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai examination on the dead body of found on the dead body of “1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. 2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margi 16. PW-2 opined that the cause of death massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. perusal of the inj clearly reveal that while injury No.1 (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 13 ) Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the complainant (Vinod Kumar), husband of the deceased, of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained unimpeached, coupled with the fact that medical evidence fully corroborates the case of prosecution, conviction of recorded by the learned trial Court is fully justified. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and ith the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the outset. The prosecution has examined alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan had conducted the post examination on the dead body of Shaveta. PW found on the dead body of Shaveta, as under: Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margi 2 opined that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. perusal of the injuries as found to be existing on the dead body of reveal that while injury No.1 is on the front side of chest, injury Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the , husband of the deceased, is an eye-witness of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained coupled with the fact that medical evidence fully conviction of both the appellants as is fully justified. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and ith the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the outset. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Dr. S.K.Sharma, who had conducted the post-mortem . PW-12 described the injuries , as under: Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margins of left scapula.” was due to rupture of the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. A uries as found to be existing on the dead body of Shaveta is on the front side of chest, injury VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. margins. A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. cross-examination, PW exit wound was at the back of dead body. a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Tho examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing elicited during his opinion. is a case of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury sustained by her. 17. Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR alleged that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired shots. While in the stated to the similar effect. PW that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to sho factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges been fired by one of the t cartridges only as specifically stated by PW the shot in question had been fired from rifle No. 21203, Butt No.732 The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 14 ) No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. examination, PW-2 stated that entry wound is from chest side and exit wound was at the back of dead body. The said facts suggest that it is a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Tho examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing cited during his cross-examination so as to doubt either opinion. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury sustained by her. Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired While in the witness-box also, PW- stated to the similar effect. PW-3 Alisha, who was a child witness, stated that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to sho factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges from Dinesh Chaturvedi shows that only 1 shot had been fired by one of the two accused, as both of them had been issued 5 cartridges only as specifically stated by PW the shot in question had been fired from rifle No. 21203, Butt No.732, which had been recovered from The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. Injury No.2 has everted A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. During 2 stated that entry wound is from chest side and The said facts suggest that it is a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Though the witness was cross- examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be examination so as to doubt either his veracity or Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired -1 Vinod Kumar (complainant) Alisha, who was a child witness, stated that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to shoot. The factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle from Baljit Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge Dinesh Chaturvedi shows that only 1 shot had , as both of them had been issued 5 cartridges only as specifically stated by PW-15. As per the FSL report, the shot in question had been fired from rifle No.75-L-8975, Bolt No.CA- been recovered from Dinesh Chaturvedi. The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) PW-15 HC 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW is, thus, evident Chaturvedi, which proved fatal. 18. Role of Dinesh Chaturvedi be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired with an intention to under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, which still could attract an offence punishable under Sect 19. The co-accused 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was untraceable. PW the said fact during cross “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction of a child named Harmandeep Singh from police were holding alleged abducted.” 20. It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given day to hold them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. During the course of (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 15 ) 15 HC Malkit Singh. The recovery of rifle was effected on 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW is, thus, evident that only 1 shot had been fired by accused , which proved fatal. Role of Dinesh Chaturvedi : The material issue in the instant case would be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired with an intention to kill the deceased attracting an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, which still could attract an offence punishable under Sect accused Baljit Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was untraceable. PW-9 SI Balbir Singh, who investigated the case, admitted the said fact during cross-examination while stating as under: “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction of a child named Harmandeep Singh from police were holding naka at various places to nab the alleged abducted.” It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given day to hold naka at bridge on river Sutlej. It is also borne out that both of them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. During the course of naka, apart from tracing the missing child, who was The recovery of rifle was effected on 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW-12 ASI Avtar Singh. It that only 1 shot had been fired by accused Dinesh he material issue in the instant case would be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired kill the deceased attracting an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, which still could attract an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. Baljit Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was ir Singh, who investigated the case, admitted examination while stating as under: “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction of a child named Harmandeep Singh from Ludhiana and at various places to nab the It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given at bridge on river Sutlej. It is also borne out that both of them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. , apart from tracing the missing child, who was them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were also expected to be vigilant and check Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying that he had fired stated that the on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had tried to turn back the vehicle fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on the rear seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity with the complainant or with the decea loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of IPC are extracted herein 99. Culpable homicide. of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits Explanation 1. under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2. such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 16 ) reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were also expected to be vigilant and check Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying that he had fired stated that the on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had tried to turn back the vehicle. It is a case where only one single shot was fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on r seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity with the complainant or with the deceased or that their intention was to loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of IPC are extracted herein-under: Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2. - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were also expected to be vigilant and check criminal activity. Dinesh Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying that he had fired stated that the vehicle had been stopped on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had It is a case where only one single shot was fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on r seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity sed or that their intention was to loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause the offence of culpable homicide. A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) Explanation homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been compl 300. Murder. murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly. knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly. and the bod of nature to cause death, or 4thly. dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily inju likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1. Exception 2. Exception 3. servant justice, an act which he, due discharge of the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. Exception 5. 21. The facts of the given case where duty, fired one shot at the required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently act of appellant IPC punishable under section 304 IPC. (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 17 ) Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – 2ndly. - It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily inju likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1. - x x x Exception 2. – x x x Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. – x x x Exception 5. – x x x The facts of the given case where appellant duty, fired one shot at the deceased under some mistaken belief that it was required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi would attract an punishable under section 304 IPC. The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child etely born. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person ily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. is not murder if the offender, being a public or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi, while on deceased under some mistaken belief that it was required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently, the Dinesh Chaturvedi would attract an offence section 299 VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) 22. Role of Baljit Singh (PW-1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box that both of the accused had fired categorically stated that only the accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case of firing of a single shot only by Dinesh of Baljit Singh alongwith Dinesh as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold river Sutlej but Baljit Singh not havin some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co accused Dinesh incident in que mens-rea nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed by co-accused Dinesh Chaturvedi. 23. Sanction for Prosecution Dinesh Chaturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in Cr.P.C. was required to be taken before prosecuting the accused/appellants. (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 18 ) Baljit Singh : As regards role of Baljit Singh, the complainant 1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box that both of the accused had fired, but the other eye categorically stated that only the hindu accused fired and that the accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case firing of a single shot only by Dinesh Chaturvedi of Baljit Singh alongwith Dinesh Chaturvedi as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold river Sutlej but Baljit Singh not having fired any shot and there being some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co accused Dinesh Chaturvedi to shoot, the role of Baljit Singh in the incident in question is rendered doubtful. He can neither be attributed any nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed accused Dinesh Chaturvedi. Sanction for Prosecution : Having held that the shot came to be fired by haturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in Cr.P.C. was required to be taken before prosecuting the accused/appellants. Section 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under: As regards role of Baljit Singh, the complainant 1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box but the other eye-witness PW-3 accused fired and that the sikh accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case Chaturvedi. While the presence Chaturvedi at the spot is not in dispute as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold ‘naka’ on the bridge on g fired any shot and there being some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co- to shoot, the role of Baljit Singh in the stion is rendered doubtful. He can neither be attributed any nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed Having held that the shot came to be fired by haturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required to be taken before prosecuting the 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under: VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) (b) [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expr "Central Government" were substituted.] [Explanation shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence allege have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] 2013 ] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub expression "Central Government" occurring therein the expression "State Government" were substituted. [(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 19 ) Prosecution of Judges and public servants. or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.] Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence allege have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 ] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.] No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub expression "Central Government" occurring therein the expression "State ernment" were substituted. A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Prosecution of Judges and public servants. - (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government n the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply ession "State Government" occurring therein, the expression For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.] No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members (of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein the expression "State A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [(3-B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Pr was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify t 24. Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person appointed as a ‘Home Guard’ would servant in the matter of prosecution under: “5. Powers, protection and control when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the ti force. (2) No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction of the S 25. In K. Kalimuthu Vs. State Supreme Court “11. It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 20 ) Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government twithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person appointed as a ‘Home Guard’ would have protection as enjoyed by public servant in the matter of prosecution. Section Powers, protection and control – (1) A member of the Punjab Home Guards when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the ti force. No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction of the State Government.” K. Kalimuthu Vs. State by D.S.P., (2005) 4 SCC 512 Supreme Court held as under: It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government twithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the oclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, he Court before which the trial is to be held.” Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person have protection as enjoyed by public Section 5 of the said Act reads as (1) A member of the Punjab Home Guards when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the time being in No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction (2005) 4 SCC 512, the Hon’ble It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) must have been done by t or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given li construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is establi act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. purpose of affo frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may be necessary. But if the same offic not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari (AIR 1956 SC 44) thus: 12. If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to official to which Code cannot be disputed. 26. While discussing the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as regards requirement of sanction for prosecuting a public servant in respect of an act done in discharge of his official duty, Hon’ble (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 21 ) must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given li construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is establi act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may be necessary. But if the same officer commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari (AIR 1956 SC 44) thus: "The offence alleged to have been committed (by the accused) must have something to do, or must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty ... there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable (claim) but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did performance of his duty." If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to official to which Code cannot be disputed.” While discussing the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as regards requirement of sanction for prosecuting a public servant in respect of an act done in discharge of his official duty, Hon’ble Supreme Court in he public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire rding protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may er commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his duty can be deemed to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari "The offence alleged to have been committed (by the accused) must have something to do, or must be related in some manner with the e of official duty ... there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable (claim) but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty applicability of Section 197 of the While discussing the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as regards requirement of sanction for prosecuting a public servant in respect of an act done in Supreme Court in Sankaran VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das & another, (2006) 4 SCC 584 arising out of clash between the political parties at a polling booth, where the police gave beatings to a person resulting in his death, held as under: “17. The High Court has stated that killing of a person by use of excessive force could never be performance of duty. It may be correct so far as it goes. But the question is whether that act was done in the performance of duty or in purported performance of du purported performance of duty Section 197(1) of the Code cannot be by by reasoning that killing a man could never be done in an official capacity and consequently Section 197(1) of the Code could not be a reasoning would be against the ratio of the decisions of this Court referred to earlier. The other reason given by the High Court that if the High Court were to interfere on the ground of want of sanction, people will lose faith in the judicial process, cannot also be a ground to dispense with a statutory requirement or protection. Public trust in the institution can be maintained by entertaining causes coming within its jurisdiction, by performing the duties entrusted to it diligently, in and without delay. Dispensing with of jurisdictional or statutory requirements which may ultimately affect the adjudication itself, will itself result in people losing faith in the system. So, the reason in cannot be sufficient to enable it to get over the jurisdictional requirement of a sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was in error in holding t under Section 197(1) was not needed in this case. We hold that such sanction was necessary and for want of sanction the prosecution must be quashed at this stage. It is not for us now to answer the submission of learned counsel for the complai 27. In a recent Kumar Upadhyay & others, Supreme Court held as under: 65. Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 22 ) Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das & another, (2006) 4 SCC 584 arising out of clash between the political parties at a polling booth, where the police gave beatings to a person resulting in his death, held as under: The High Court has stated that killing of a person by use of excessive force could never be performance of duty. It may be correct so far as it goes. But the question is whether that act was done in the performance of duty or in purported performance of duty. If it was done in performance of duty or purported performance of duty Section 197(1) of the Code cannot be by by reasoning that killing a man could never be done in an official capacity and consequently Section 197(1) of the Code could not be a reasoning would be against the ratio of the decisions of this Court referred to earlier. The other reason given by the High Court that if the High Court were to interfere on the ground of want of sanction, people will lose faith in the icial process, cannot also be a ground to dispense with a statutory requirement or protection. Public trust in the institution can be maintained by entertaining causes coming within its jurisdiction, by performing the duties entrusted to it diligently, in accordance with law and the established procedure and without delay. Dispensing with of jurisdictional or statutory requirements which may ultimately affect the adjudication itself, will itself result in people losing faith in the system. So, the reason in cannot be sufficient to enable it to get over the jurisdictional requirement of a sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was in error in holding t under Section 197(1) was not needed in this case. We hold that such sanction was necessary and for want of sanction the prosecution must be quashed at this stage. It is not for us now to answer the submission of learned counsel for the complainant that this is an eminently fit case for grant of such sanction. recent judgment reported as Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & others, (2024) SCC Online SC 3726 Supreme Court held as under: Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under Section 197 CrPC is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das & another, (2006) 4 SCC 584, in a matter arising out of clash between the political parties at a polling booth, where the police gave beatings to a person resulting in his death, held as under: The High Court has stated that killing of a person by use of excessive force could never be performance of duty. It may be correct so far as it goes. But the question is whether that act was done in the performance of duty or in ty. If it was done in performance of duty or purported performance of duty Section 197(1) of the Code cannot be by-passed by reasoning that killing a man could never be done in an official capacity and consequently Section 197(1) of the Code could not be attracted. Such a reasoning would be against the ratio of the decisions of this Court referred to earlier. The other reason given by the High Court that if the High Court were to interfere on the ground of want of sanction, people will lose faith in the icial process, cannot also be a ground to dispense with a statutory requirement or protection. Public trust in the institution can be maintained by entertaining causes coming within its jurisdiction, by performing the duties accordance with law and the established procedure and without delay. Dispensing with of jurisdictional or statutory requirements which may ultimately affect the adjudication itself, will itself result in people that behalf given by the High Court cannot be sufficient to enable it to get over the jurisdictional requirement of a sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was in error in holding that sanction under Section 197(1) was not needed in this case. We hold that such sanction was necessary and for want of sanction the prosecution must be quashed at this stage. It is not for us now to answer the submission of learned counsel for the nant that this is an eminently fit case for grant of such sanction.” Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan (2024) SCC Online SC 3726, the Hon’ble Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the protection under Section 197 CrPC is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 23 ) rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under: The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporti official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause. The provision is in the form of an assurance to the honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized. The expression “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the “course of duty”. However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his duty, then a liberal and wide construction must be given to a particular act or omission so far as its “official” nature is concerned. It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if the act complained of falls within his official duty and on the other, appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty. A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection unde Hence, it is not the duty which requires an examination so much as the “act” itself. One of the foremost tests which wa whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office. Later, the test came to be re-modulated. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty such that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that his actions were in the course of performance of his duty. Therefore, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under: - The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause. The provision is in the he honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized. The expression “any offence alleged to have been committed by him le acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the “course of duty”. However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the a liberal and wide construction must be given to a particular act or omission so far as its “official” nature is It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to the factual situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if the act complained of falls within appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty. A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the ficial duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 CrPC. Hence, it is not the duty which requires an examination so much as the One of the foremost tests which was laid down in this regard was - whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, s in virtue of his office. modulated. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that his actions were in the course of performance of his duty. Therefore, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 28. Admittedly, no sanction from the Government was taken before prosecuting the appellants both of whom were Police Department and were performing circumstances, even if the force in performing their official duties and a shot had been fired under (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 24 ) under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. If in performing his official duty, the public servant acts in excess of his duty, the excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from protection unde that there existed a reasonable connection between the act done performance of his official duty. It is the “quality” of the act that must be examined and the mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position would not be enough to attrac The legislature has thought fit to use two distinct expressions “acting” or “purporting to act”. The latter expression means that even if the alleged act was done under the color of office, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be given. However, this excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down such a rule. However, a “safe and sure test” would be to consider if the omission or neglec servant to commit the act complained of would have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the protection under CrPC can be granted since there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under the supposed color of public office. The benefit of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts committed mu dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. On an application of the tests as aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused has been charged has a reasonable connection with the discharge of his official duty, the applicability of Section 197 CrPC cannot be denied. Admittedly, no sanction from the Government was taken before prosecuting the appellants both of whom were Police Department and were performing circumstances, even if the accused had, to some exten performing their official duties and a shot had been fired under under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. l duty, the public servant acts in excess of his duty, the excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from protection under Section 197 CrPC if it is found that there existed a reasonable connection between the act done and the It is the “quality” of the act that must be examined and the mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position would not be enough to attract Section 197 CrPC. The legislature has thought fit to use two distinct expressions “acting” or “purporting to act”. The latter expression means that even if the alleged act was done under the color of office, the protection under CrPC can be given. However, this protection must not be excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down such a rule. However, a “safe and sure test” would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of would have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the protection under Section 197 since there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under the supposed color of public office. The t of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts committed must be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or On an application of the tests as aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused has been charged asonable connection with the discharge of his official duty, the CrPC cannot be denied. Admittedly, no sanction from the Government was taken before prosecuting the appellants both of whom were ‘public servants’ serving Police Department and were performing official duties. Under these to some extent, exceeded in use of performing their official duties and a shot had been fired under VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) misconception, the case would No sanction having been accorded by the State before launching prosecution against eyes of law. 29. In view of the discussion made above and are hereby accepted. Both the appellants namely Baljit Singh and Dinesh Chaturvedi are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 30. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. 13.02.2025 Vimal (O&M) & 2005 (O&M) ( 25 ) misconception, the case would attract provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. No sanction having been accorded by the State before launching prosecution against accused, the entire proceedings would be eyes of law. In view of the discussion made above, both the appeals merit acceptance and are hereby accepted. Both the appellants namely Baljit Singh and Dinesh Chaturvedi are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary liance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. No sanction having been accorded by the State before launching the entire proceedings would be nonest in the both the appeals merit acceptance and are hereby accepted. Both the appellants namely Baljit Singh and Dinesh Chaturvedi are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 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 provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document