CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-119-2025(O&M) Basant Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …... Respondents CRR-128-2025(O&M) Harpal Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …... Respondents 1. Date when Order was reserved 21.05.2026 2. Pronouncement of Order 01.07.2026 3. Date of uploading Order 02.07.2026 4. Whether operative part or full Order is pronounced Full 5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full order, and reasons thereof Not Applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in both the cases) Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate and Ms. Akshita Tandon, Advocate for victim(s). **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. By this common order, both the aforementioned revision petitions are being disposed of. 2. Present revision petitions have been filed by petitioners, namely, Basant Singh and Harpal Singh, challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 2 Amritsar, whereby, petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with the other challaned accused in FIR No. 46 dated 25.04.2022, registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural. 3. FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant-Kunan Singh @ Kunda. Alleged occurrence took place at about 10:00 a.m. on 25.04.2022, and the FIR registered in this regard on the statement of complainant-Kunan Singh @ Kunda, reads as under: “ That 1 am the resident of the above-said address and working as an agriculturist. Our area is situated upon the bank of minor of our village Dhol Kalan at Kambo, we are joint holding of 16 acre of 3 houses. 1 am cultivating this land and I am residing in the Dera situated in the land alongwith my family members. I have sown wheat crop in the land which has been harvested. Jaspal Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of Nare Palan Sahib Ghumtala Road, Amritsar also claiming his right upon my land and there is a dispute of girdwari pending in the Court of Tehsildar with his brother Dilbag Singh. Today 25/04/2022 at 10:00 am, Jaspal Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of Nere Palah Sahib road, Amritsar carrying 315 bore, Dilbag Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of Bindi Saidan carrying 12 bore, Basant Singh son of Jaspal Singh R/o near Plah Sahib Road, Amritsar carrying dattar, Lakhhbir Singh son of Ajaib r/o Kambo carrying dattar, Harpal Singh son of Lakhbir Singh resident of Kambo carrying kirpan and 3-4 unknown persons came on the spot alongwith JBC Machine and they forcibly removing earth from our land and I restrained to RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 3 them to do so but they did not stop then I call telephonically the persons as a Panchayat for help to Ajaypal Singh son of Shashpal Singh, Roshanbir Singh son of Avtar Singh, Harjinder Singh son of Subeg Singh, Jaspal Singh son of Kanwaljit Singh, Jagbir Singh son of Gurpal Singh resident of Dholkalan when we again tried to restrain them then Jaspal Singh son of Baldev Singh raised a Lalkara in high volume and stated that this is our land and who are they restrained us to removing earth, Jaspal Singh fired straight way with the intention to kill with his carrying 315 bore which was caused upon the left jaw of Ajaypal Singh. Then Basant Singh gave a dattar blow upon Roshanbir Singh, he raised his left hand in front side for his defence and his left hand fingers were chopped then Harpal Singh gave kirpan blow upon Jagbir Singh and that was caused upon the eyebrow of left eye then Dilbag Singh fired from his 12 bore rifle upon jaspal Singh son of Kanwaljit Singh which was caused upon his left thigh. Then we raised a voice Maar Ditta Jaar Ditta then the accused persons ran away from the land by leaving their JCB Machine. I arranged the vehicle and admitted to the injured in the Hartej Hospital, Amritsar for their treatment due to excess injuries those were referred by the Doctor to Amandeep Hospital Amritsar, they are under treatment, the reason of enmity is that other side Jaspal Singh claiming their right upon our land and today they were removing the earth from our land by putting JCB Machine in it. For restraining them then they caused injury to our side. Today myself is approaching alongwith my son Amandeep Singh to the police and you met us in the way and action to be taken on the claim of the complainants. Sd/- Kunan Singh, Sd/-Amandeep Singh above said verified By Surjit Singh ASI PS Kambo dated 25/04/2022.” RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 4 4. According to the version set up in the FIR, accused-Jaspal Singh raised a lalkara, asserting ownership over the land in question. He then fired directly from a .315 bore pistol, striking Ajay Pal Singh on the left jaw. Accused-Basant Singh (Petitioner in CRR-119 of 2025) delivered a blow with a datar toward Roshanbir Singh. Although Roshanbir Singh raised his left hand in self-defence, blow resulted in the amputation of the fingers of his left hand. Furthermore, accused-Harpal Singh (Petitioner in CRR-128 of 2025) is stated to have inflicted a kirpan blow on Jagbir Singh, striking him on the left eyebrow. In the course of same incident, accused-Dilbagh Singh allegedly fired from a 12-bore rifle at Jaspal Singh, hitting him on his left thigh. On raising alarm and shouting by the complainant party "mar dita, mar dita", accused persons fled the scene, abandoning their JCB machine on the spot. 5. After investigation of the case, final report/challan was submitted against three accused, namely: (i) Jaspal Singh, (ii) Dilbagh Singh, and (iii) Lakhbir Singh. During investigation, Petitioners' party also got registered its counter-version at the instance of one Dilbagh Singh vide GD No. 54 dated 25.04.2022 against Kunan Singh @ Kunda, his son Amandeep Singh @ Aman, and others, which reads as under: “That I am resident of above said address and working as an agriculturist. My sister-in-law Rajinder Kaur wife of Jaspal Singh resident of Palah Sahib near Ghumtala Amritsar is having three acre land, her name in village RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 5 Dholkalan near minor in the area of village Kambo. There is a residential Dera construct in area. I also have Girdawari in my name of 3 acre land. Regarding that dispute of Girdawari is pending in the Court of Tehsildar Amritsar with Kunan Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Dhonkalan. I am also look after land of my sister in law alongwith his land and oftently visited in the land, today myself alongwith my servant Lakhbir Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of Kambo were levelling our land JCB Machine after harvesting wheat crop at about 10:00 am Amandeep Singh @ Aman son of Kundan Singh resident of Dholkalan carrying pistol, Kunan Singh @ Kunda son of Darshan Singh carrying dattar, Harjinder Singh @ Jinda son of Subeg Singh carrying pistol, Jasbir Singh @ Beer son of Gurpal Singh carrying revolver, Ajaypal Singh son of shashpal Singh carrying dattar Dharminder Singh @ Talwinder Singh son of Avtar Singh carrying revolver, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Harjit Singh carrying dattar, Roshanbir Singh son of Avtar carrying dattar all r/o Dhoikalan and Gora son of not known carrying iron rod resident of Redala came on the spot and after seeing them, myself and my servant Lakhbir Singh were entered in the Dera upon the land and above said persons around of our Dera and they snatched our tractor which was putting earth and Amandeep Singh @ Aman ride upon the tractor and he demolished the wall of residential room and fired in the air with this pistol and then all the accused entered inside and Ajaypal Singh raised a lalkara in the Courtyard to teach them a lesson for removing earth from the land. Harjinder Singh @ Jinda and Dharminder Singh fired in the air from their pistol then Jasbir Singh fired in air from his revolver then Roshanbir Singh gave a dattar blow upon Lakhbir RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 6 Singh that was caused upon the right side of the back and then Gora gave a two rod blow of his iron rod upon left arm of Lakhbir Singh and Gurpreet Singh and Kunan Singh gave a two dattar blow upon me which caused upon my head, we raised a voice Maar Ditta Maar Ditta then accused persons ran away with their weapons from the spot. The reason of rivalry that there is a dispute of Girdawari is pending in the Court of Tehsildar Sahib with Kunan Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Dholkalan. They are having revenge with us for this reason and due to that revenge, they have caused injuries to us and action to be taken on the basis of complainant Sd-Dilbag Singh above said, SD/-Surjit Singh ASI PS Kambo dated 25/04/2022.” After investigation of the cross-version case, challan was presented against total seven accused, namely: (i) Amandeep Singh @ Amna, (ii) Kunan Singh, (iii) Harjinder Singh @ Jinda, (iv) Jagbir Singh @ Beer, (v) Dharminder Singh @ Talwinder Singh, (vi) Gurpreet Singh, and (vii) Navjot Singh @ Gora. 6. In the first version, i.e. FIR case, after recording the evidence of complainant-Kunan Singh as PW-1, defence counsel expressed his apprehension that prosecution may move application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, he would conduct cross examination of the witnesses at one time, so that the defence may not be disclosed. Said request was considered and thereafter another witness PW2 Agyapal Singh was examined in chief by the prosecution. After recording of the statements (examination in chief) prosecution moved its application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning the following accused to face trial alongwith the other RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 7 accused: (i) Basant Singh (ii) Harpal Singh, (iii) Paramjit Singh, and (iv) Satnam Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Rana. 7. While considering the application for summoning additional accused by invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., trial Court concluded that much reliance could not be placed upon the statement of PW-2 Agyapal Singh regarding the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence. However, it found that there was a clear-cut version of complainant-Kunan Singh regarding the presence of accused, namely, Jaspal Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Basant Singh, and Harpal Singh at the place of occurrence and their involvement in the crime. Concluding part in this regard, as discussed in paragraph No. 8, reads as under: “8. It is all material to mention here that prosecution has examined two witnesses namely Kundan Singh complainant and Agyapal Singh at the time of trial. In fact both the witnesses have been examined in part and were not cross- examined on behalf of accused, as discussed earlier. Complainant Kundan Singh has deposed the things almost on similar footings to that of his statement Ex.P1 so suffered before police. However, Agyapal Singh has improved the version to great extent to that of prosecution version. It is material to mention here that complainant never uttered in his statement before police or in his statement during trial regarding presence of witness Agyapal Singh at the place of occurrence. Even Agyapal Singh remained silent about such aspect in his first statement so recorded by police and then he improved the things in his supplementary statements to nominate all the accused persons. Therefore, in the given set RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 8 of circumstances, no much reliance can be placed on the testimony of Agyapal Singh regarding presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence. But, at the same time, there is clear-cut version of complainant Kundan Singh regarding presence of accused Jaspal Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Basant Singh and Harpal Singh at place of occurrence and regarding their involvement in the crime and he disclosed all the things at the time of trial so disclosed in his statement Ex.P1 before the police. Such evidence on record is enough to summon two of the accused namely Basant Singh and Harpal Singh in this case as there are more than sufficient grounds to proceed against such two accused persons namely Basant Singh and Harpal Singh also to face trial for offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 148 read with Section 149 IPC along with co-accused Jaspal Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Lakhbir Singh. Accordingly, these two accused namely Basant Singh and Harpal Singh are summoned for 18.12.2024 to face trial for such offences. While the application of prosecution qua rest of two accused namely Paramjit Singh and Satnam Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Rana under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Accordingly, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. Nothing said above shall effect the case of prosecution.” 8. Thus, while summoning both the petitioners, the other proposed accused sought to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., namely: (i) Paramjit Singh and (ii) Satnam Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Rana, were not summoned by the trial Court, as sufficient material was not available against them. RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 9 9. Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate, representing both the aforementioned petitioners, argues that neither there is any sufficient material/evidence available on record, nor the order passed by the learned trial Court is speaking one, as no reasons have been assigned as to how a case beyond the prima facie standard is made out against the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel further argues that merely on the basis of partly recorded examination-in-chief of complainant PW-1 Kunan Singh @ Kunda, and once the other witness, namely PW-2 Agyapal Singh, has not even been relied upon by the trial Court, in the absence of any other corroborative statement or material on record, petitioners ought not be summoned by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the cross- version case registered at the instance of petitioners, incident, in fact had taken place at the residential dera constructed in said area, where the wall of the residential room was also demolished by the complainant party in the FIR case. Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon the version put forth by complainant in the FIR that the actual place of occurrence was the fields and not the place mentioned in the cross-version case. 12. Learned counsel also argues that once the presence of the alleged eyewitness, i.e., PW-2 Agyapal Singh, is found to be doubtful, petitioners could not have been summoned solely on the basis of the statement of complainant-Kunan Singh @ Kunda. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing both the revision petitions by setting aside the impugned order. RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 10 13. It is further argued that before summoning petitioners, the trial Court ought to have determined the place of occurrence and also as to which party was the aggressor and which side caused injuries to the other in exercise of the right of private defence. Once it is established that the place of occurrence is the one mentioned in the cross-version case which got registered by petitioners, the summoning of petitioners as accused in the FIR case cannot sustain. 14. On the other hand, Learned State counsel submits that though during investigation, both the petitioners were found innocent by the Investigating Officer, once evidence has come on record before the trial Court, the petitioners have been rightly summoned by exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the alleged offences. Thus, the impugned order is perfectly justified. 15. Ms. Ishima Randhawa, Advocate for the victim, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that sufficient material is already available on record. She further submits that factual aspect regarding the presence of the now-summoned accused stands well established from the allegations mentioned in the FIR, which were further confirmed before the trial Court during their deposition. She further submits that the injuries alleged to have been caused by both the summoned accused stand duly confirmed/corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, both the petitioners have been rightly summoned, and merely by summoning RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 11 them, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of both the revision petitions. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 17. Deceased in the present case is Ajay Pal Singh. Role attributed to the summoned accused Basant Singh in the FIR is that he gave a datar blow to Roshanbir Singh, resulting in the chopping of the fingers of his left hand. Injured Roshanbir Singh was taken to Mandeep Hospital, where, in the column of alleged history of A/H/O, it is clearly mentioned that the injury was caused due to an assault with a sharp object (datar). On perusal of the medical record of the injured, it is found that the Plastic Surgeon issued a certificate dated 27.06.2022, wherein an incised wound measuring 14 x 02 x 01 cm over the dorsum of the left hand and fracture of the fourth and fifth metacarpals were noticed. Injuries noticed by the Plastic Surgeon read as under: “1. Incised wound of size 14 x 02 x 01 cms over dorsum of left hand from ulnar side of little finger to wrist. .Fracture 4th & 5th metacarpals .Transection of EDC (Extensor Tendon) of middle, ring & little finger. . Transection of FDS and FDP (Fiexor Tendons) of little finger. Nature of Injury: . Injury is grievous in nature.” RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 12 When complainant Kunan Singh appeared in the witness box, he clearly deposed that Basant Singh was armed with datar and he gave blow to Roshanbir Singh and resultantly two of the fingers of left hand of Roshanbir Singh were cut (as noticed in para 1 of the impugned order) 18. Even, presence of the injured Roshanbir Singh carrying datar is mentioned in cross version and also giving datar blow upon right side of the back of Lakhbir Singh. 19. Once injured-Roshanbir, who as per FIR and cross-version both, is present on spot and the injuries suffered by Roshanbir Singh is found to be prima facie confirmed from the medical examination, presence of petitioner-Basant Singh cannot be doubted much at this stage. 20. Involvement of another summoned accused Harpal Singh also needs to be examined from the record applying the same parameters. As per FIR, Harpal Singh was armed with Kirpan and gave blow to injured Jagbir Singh on his left eyebrow. As informed by the counsel for the parties during the course of hearing said injured never got himself medically examined. However, while appearing in the witness box, complainant-Kunan Singh @ Kunda reiterated the said allegation by stating that ‘Harpal Singh gave a blow with kirpan to Jagbir Singh, which struck on his left eyebrow’ (as noticed in para 1 of the impugned order). However, there is no explanation as to what was the nature of injury and why he did not get himself medically examined. RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 13 Role attributed to Harpal Singh in the FIR is that he inflicted a kirpan blow upon injured Jagbir Singh, which allegedly landed on the eyebrow of his left eye. However, unlike the case of co-accused Basant Singh, the allegation against petitioner-Harpal Singh does not find support from any medical evidence available on record. It is relevant to notice that although Jagbir Singh has been projected as an injured witness, he was not got medically examined, and no explanation is furnished regarding his medical non-examination. Thus, alleged injury attributed to petitioner-Harpal Singh remains uncorroborated by any medical evidence. 21. On the contrary, in the cross-version case, a specific allegation has been levelled that Jagbir Singh @ Bir was carrying a revolver and had fired a shot in the air. The said version, at this stage, creates a doubt regarding the manner of occurrence and the respective roles attributed to the parties. It is also pertinent to notice that the statement of PW-2 Agyapal Singh has not been believed by the learned trial Court, even in the impugned order, as his presence at the place of occurrence was found doubtful. Therefore, case against petitioner-Harpal Singh rests solely upon the statement of complainant-Kunan Singh @ Kunda (PW-1). 22. Though the statement of the complainant cannot be discarded merely for want of corroboration, however, while exercising the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court has to examine whether the evidence available on record is of such quality and RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 14 strength which would justify the addition of a person as an accused to face trial. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab has held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only when the evidence available on record is more than the prima facie standard required at the stage of framing of charge. The evidence should be of such nature that, if left unrebutted, it may reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. 23. At this stage, it is also necessary to distinguish the case of petitioner-Harpal Singh from that of co-accused Basant Singh. In the case of petitioner-Basant Singh, allegation of causing a datar blow to Roshanbir Singh finds corroboration from the medical evidence available on record. The injured was medically examined and the injuries noticed by the doctor correspond to the alleged weapon of offence. Therefore, the evidentiary position qua petitioner-Basant Singh stands on a different footing. However, in the case of petitioner-Harpal Singh, there is no such independent corroborative material available on record. The alleged injured Jagbir Singh was not even medically examined, and thus allegation of causing injury by a kirpan blow remains unsupported by any medical evidence. 24. Argument of the counsel for the petitioner(s) that the place of incident needs to be established first lacks substance in it because that stage is yet to mature and as per the criminal jurisprudence, it is never RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 15 safe to conclude before the final stage as to which side is aggressor and which side is defender. Another submission of petitioners' counsel that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witness already gets defeated with the observation made in Constitution Bench titled as ‘Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ (2014) 3 SCC 92, which subsequently was noticed by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Satbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others’, 2025 (2) SCC (Crl) 734; Law Finder Doc Id #2713713, wherein question has been answered as under: “117.3. In view of the above position the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question (ii)-Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross- examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? Answer 117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319 CrPC a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) CrPC the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be rested by cross examination” 25. Accordingly, considering the material available on record, this Court finds that the order summoning petitioner-Basant Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. The evidence available against him, coupled RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-119-2025(O&M) and CRR-128-2025(O&M) 16 with the medical corroboration, satisfies the requisite standard for exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, revision petition i.e. CRR-119-2025 filed by petitioner-Basant Singh is hereby dismissed. However, for the reasons discussed above, the material available on record against petitioner-Harpal Singh does not satisfy the standard required for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, revision petition i.e CRR-128-2025 filed by petitioner- Harpal Singh is allowed and the impugned order, to that extent, is hereby setaside. 26. Since the main revision petitions have already been decided, no further order(s) is required to be passed in CRM-16027-2026 in CRR- 119-2025 and CRM-15770-2026 in CRR-128-2025 and stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 01.07.2026 JUDGE Rashmi RASHMI 2026.07.02 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document