2026:HHC:19049 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMP No.8 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.4 of 2026 a/w CRMP No.6 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.2 of 2026 & CRMP No.7 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.3 of 2026 Reserved on: 08.05.2026 Date of decision: 22.05.2026 Uploaded on : 22.05.2026 1. CRMP No.8 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.4 of 2026 Gurpreet Singh. ...Appellant/Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. 2. CRMP No.6 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.2 of 2026 Amreek Singh. ...Appellant/Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. 3. CRMP No.7 of 2026 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No.3 of 2026 Dilpreet Singh. ...Appellant/Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant(s)/ applicant(s) : Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, in all applications/appeals. -2- 2026:HHC:19049 For the respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, in all applications/appeals. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge These applications, being identical in nature and to be adjudicated on the basis of common facts and evidence available on record as well as similar submissions made by the parties, are being decided together by this common order. 2. Applicants-appellants (Gurpreet Singh, Amreek Singh and Dilpreet Singh), along with co-convict Yashwant Singh, have been convicted under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC. Co-convict Yashwant Singh has also been convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act, in addition to his conviction under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC. 3. Applicants have been awarded sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months each for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months each for commission of offence under Section 120B IPC. -3- 2026:HHC:19049 4. Prosecution case is that on 01.04.2021, deceased-Vipan Kumar was harvesting crops in the land with the help of migrant labourers, along with his brothers, namely, Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-15). Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) had arranged the migrant labourers and brought them to the spot and thereafter left for his home, whereas, after some time, Gurcharan Singh (PW-7), on the direction of Vipan Kumar, left the field on a motorcycle to bring tea from home. At that time, a green-coloured Gypsy bearing registration No.HP 20-6188, driven by appellant convict-Gurpreet Singh, reached the spot, in which co-convict-Yashwant Singh, along with applicants-appellants Dilpreet Singh and Amreek Singh, was also travelling. Yashwant Singh alighted from the vehicle carrying a 12 bore double-barrel gun in his hand and loudly proclaimed that he would finish Vipan Kumar. Other occupants of the Gypsy also came out of the vehicle and asserted that they were owners of the land in question and asked Yashwant Singh to kill Vipan Kumar, whereupon Yashwant Singh @ Bittu fired at Vipan Kumar with his gun, which hit him on left side of his chest, resulting in his death. 5. Accused persons, namely, Yashwant Singh, Dilpreet Singh, Amreek Singh and Gurpreet Singh, also threatened the labourers present at the spot, warning them that they would also be killed, due to which they fled towards the Swan River. -4- 2026:HHC:19049 6. At the time of the aforesaid incident, Gurdial Singh (PW- 1), along with his cousin Satnam Singh (PW-3), was present in their field adjoining the field where deceased-Vipan Kumar was harvesting the wheat crop. 7. Information regarding the incident was conveyed by Satnam Singh (PW-3) to Sanjay Kumar (PW-15), brother of deceased- Vipan Kumar, on his mobile phone. By that time Gurcharan Singh (PW- 7) also reached the spot, deceased Vipan-Kumar had already succumbed to his injuries. 8. These applications have been filed by the applicants- appellants for suspension of sentence on the ground that their conviction is based upon vague and inconsistent evidence, and solely on the basis of mutually contradictory testimonies of prosecution witnesses, as the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material contradictions, which go to the root of the case and render prosecution story unreliable. 9. It has been further submitted that it has come in evidence that there was a property dispute between the parties and deceased- Vipan Kumar was harvesting crops on the land which belonged to the applicants-appellants. -5- 2026:HHC:19049 10. It has been further contended on behalf of the applicants- appellants that there is no evidence of any prior meeting of minds and that the prosecution has failed to establish any pre-planning before the incident, as well as any overt act or conduct attributable to the applicants-appellants depicting a shared intention to kill deceased- Vipan Kumar. 11. It has been further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the applicants-appellants, with the further submission that they were not even named in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and that even the rough site plan does not depict their presence at the spot. 12. It has been contended that no witness has consistently stated the exact words allegedly spoken by applicants-appellants to instigate co-accused Yashwant Singh, who allegedly fired upon deceased-Vipan Kumar. It has been further submitted that the allegations against applicants-appellants are general and omnibus in nature, rendering their conviction highly arguable. 13. It has been submitted that, in view of aforesaid lapses, discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, there is a fair chance of acquittal of the applicants-appellants and, -6- 2026:HHC:19049 therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail after suspension of their sentence. 14. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that applicants-appellants have committed a heinous crime by killing deceased-Vipan Kumar in broad daylight with common intention and pursuant to a prior conspiracy to commit his murder, as is evident from the statements of spot witnesses, namely Gurdial Singh (PW-1) and Satnam Singh (PW-3), who are independent witnesses and whose statements stand corroborated by Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-15), brothers of deceased Vipan Kumar. It has been further submitted that the Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record in its right perspective, has rightly convicted the accused persons and there is no likelihood of acquittal, rather the appeals are likely to be dismissed, therefore, there is no ground for suspension of sentence of the applicants-appellants, as prayed. 15. It has been further submitted that there is consistency and corroboration in the material and evidence available on record and the occurrence of death of deceased-Vipan Kumar, on account of firing from the gun of Yashwant Singh, at the relevant point of time, has never been disputed by accused persons at any stage. Therefore, it has been submitted that present applications deserve to be dismissed. -7- 2026:HHC:19049 16. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that even as under-trial prisoners, applicants/appellants were not enlarged on bail, and now they are under detention, being convicts after facing full- fledged trial, and therefore, on this count also, the prayer of applicants/appellants for suspending their sentence, is liable to be dismissed, as presumption of innocence in their favour as under-trial prisoners has now been rebutted by conviction by the Trial Court. 17. It has been submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that suggestion of accidental firing during scuffle also stands refuted from the cross-examination of Dr. Tushar Saini (PW-10), who, in his cross-examination, has unambiguously stated that, considering the injury mentioned in the postmortem report, there are remote chances of accidental firing, as the firing distance was between 1-2 metres, with further explanation that the manner in which fire was opened, is the matter of investigation. 18. Perusal of the record indicates that FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. made by Gurdial Singh (PW-1), who had witnessed the entire incident being present at the spot and working in his field. Deceased-Vipan Kumar was present in the adjoining field for harvesting the wheat crop with the help of migrant labourers. In his statement recorded under Section 154 -8- 2026:HHC:19049 Cr.P.C., as well as in his deposition before the Court, Gurdial Singh (PW-1) has categorically stated that Yashwant Singh and applicants- appellants came to the spot in a Gypsy being driven by Gurpreet Singh, and Yashwant Singh alighted from the Gypsy carrying a 12-bore double-barrel gun in his hand and started shouting at Vipan Kumar, proclaiming that he would kill him on that day. By that time, applicants- appellants (Amreek Singh, Dilpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh) also came out of the Gypsy and proclaimed that the land belonged to them and asked Yashwant Singh to kill Vipan Kumar on the spot, whereupon Yashwant Singh fired at Vipan Kumar with his double-barrel gun, causing him to fall down. It has further come in the statement of Gurdial Singh (PW-1) that the labourers present at the spot were also threatened by Yashwant Singh and his companions to run away from the spot, failing which they would also be killed, due to which the labourers fled from the spot. Thereafter, Yashwant Singh and his three companions also fled away from the spot. 19. Information regarding the incident was given by Satnam Singh (PW-3) to Sanjay Kumar (PW-15), brother of deceased-Vipan Kumar, and by that time, Gurcharan Singh (PW-7), another brother of deceased Vipan Kumar, had also reached the spot. -9- 2026:HHC:19049 20. There is no contradiction between his (PW-1) statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and his deposition before the Court. He (PW-1) has clearly mentioned the names of all four accused persons in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR came to be registered with the same averments. In his deposition before the Court, he has reiterated the said version. 21. Satnam Singh (PW-3) has corroborated the version of Gurdial Singh (PW-1). There is nothing on record to suggest that Gurdial Singh (PW-1) and Satnam Singh (PW-3) were related to deceased-Vipan Kumar, except that they were co-owners of the adjoining field. Though suggestions were put to both these witnesses that the field belonged to Yashwant Singh and that it was Yashwant Singh, who was present in the field, and deceased-Vipan Kumar had quarrelled with him and tried to snatch the gun, due to which gun accidentally opened during the scuffle. 22. In cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record to impeach veracity of statements of PW-1 and PW-3. 23. Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) has stated that deceased-Vipan Kumar had asked him to arrange tea, whereupon he went to his home on his motorcycle. While proceeding towards his home, he noticed a green-coloured Gypsy being driven by Gurpreet Singh and occupied by -10- 2026:HHC:19049 Yashwant Singh, Dilpreet Singh and Amreek Singh, all of whom were residents of his village and were well known to him. On reaching home, he requested his mother to prepare tea and sent the same to the field through another person, whereafter he started returning to the field. When he reached near the tubewell of Bhanjan Dass, he saw Yashwant Singh standing near the Gypsy holding a gun in his hand, and Dilpreet Singh, Amreek Singh and Gurpreet Singh were also standing near him. On seeing them, Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) stopped his motorcycle near the tubewell. Upon noticing him, Yashwant Singh shouted loudly, “Aaja, terko bhi goli marta hu”, and Dilpreet Singh, Amreek Singh and Gurpreet Singh also started shouting, “Mar, mar, ise bhi goli mar.” Being afraid, Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) left his motorcycle there and ran towards the fields to protect himself. Thereafter, Yashwant Singh, while signalling with his hand, shouted that they had killed his brother and he should go and collect his body. Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) ran towards the field and, upon reaching the spot, found deceased-Vipan Kumar lying in the field with a bullet injury on the left side of his chest and blood oozing from the injury. Thereafter, with the help of Satnam Singh (PW- 3) and Gurdial Singh (PW-1), he brought his brother near the road. By that time, Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) had also reached there and thereafter, along with Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) and other local persons, -11- 2026:HHC:19049 they took Vipan Kumar to the Regional Hospital, where he was declared dead. 24. Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) has corroborated the versions of Gurdial Singh (PW-1), Satnam Singh (PW-3) and Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) by stating that he had arranged migrant labourers from Una for harvesting the crop and had left them with his brother, deceased-Vipan Kumar, and his brother Gurcharan Singh (PW-7), whereafter he returned to his house as he had to go to Una for some work. At about 8:30 AM, he received a phone call from Satnam Singh (PW-3), informing him that Yashwant Singh, Dilpreet Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Amreek Singh had shot dead his brother-Vipan Kumar. Upon his return to the spot, he noticed that his brother had sustained a bullet injury and many persons had assembled there. Thereafter, with the help of other persons and his brother-Gurcharan Singh (PW-7), he placed Vipan Kumar in a vehicle and took him to the Regional Hospital, where he was declared dead. 25. From the statements of aforesaid spot witnesses, no inconsistency or material contradiction is depicted so as to arrive at a conclusion that there is a fair chance of acquittal of the applicants- appellants at the time of final hearing of the appeals. -12- 2026:HHC:19049 26. Relevant witnesses have clearly stated that applicants- appellants had come to the spot along with Yashwant Singh and had asked him to kill Vipan Kumar, which, according to learned Deputy Advocate General, clearly depicts a prior conspiracy to kill Vipan Kumar, who, at the relevant point of time, was serving in the ITBP in Chhattisgarh. 27. Plea of applicants-appellants that their names do not find mention in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is also incorrect. It is true that in the rough site plan (Exhibit PW-11/D), the names of the applicants-appellants have not been mentioned, however, it is also a matter of record that the names of none of the persons, including Yashwant Singh, deceased Vipan Kumar, Gurdial Singh (PW- 1) and Satnam Singh (PW-3), have been mentioned in the said rough site plan, wherein only the spot of occurrence/quarrel has been depicted. Therefore, omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to depict presence of applicants-appellants in the rough site plan by mentioning their names therein does not create any circumstance to construe that there exists a fair chance of acquittal of the applicants- appellants. No other point was urged. 28. In view of above discussion and consideration of the points raised for suspension of sentence, we are of the considered opinion -13- 2026:HHC:19049 that, at this stage, applicants-appellants have failed to establish, prima facie, any fair possibility of acquittal on the basis of the grounds urged on their behalf. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed. 29. Needless to say, the aforesaid observations made in the applications, shall not have any bearing on the final adjudication of the appeals, as these observations are preliminary in nature by considering the material on record, prima facie, for purpose of suspension of sentence of the applicants-appellants. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 22nd May, 2026 (Pardeep)