Dismissed

Atma Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2016CRA-D/693/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Additional Sessions Judge acquitted several accused of charges under IPC 458, 336, 427, 148, and 149 for a house invasion and assault. The High Court dismissed the victim's appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of two accused due to procedural defects and that the remaining accused were rightly acquitted due to insufficient corroboration and lack of material evid

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of respondents 2 to 8 on charges IPC 458, 336, 427, 148, 149 is affirmed.

Atma Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.D-693-DB of 2015 Date of Decision : January 11, 2016

Atma Singh

.....Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Karanjit Singh Brar, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶11

Appellant-Atma Singh, who had received injuries in the occurrence in question and, thus, a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 12.1.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka to the extent of acquitting respondents No.7 and 8, namely, Gursharan Singh and Sardool Singh of the charges under Sections 458/427/336/325/323/148/149 IPC and acquittal of respondents No.2 to 6, namely, Kulwinder Singh, Jang Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sadhu Singh and Bhola Singh of the charges under Sections 458, 336 and 427 IPC.

¶12

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2013 at about 11.00 p.m., complainant-Atma Singh, alongwith his wife Charanjit Kaur and daughter Sandeep Kaur was sleeping near the kitchen of

¶13

SATISH KUMAR 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

-2-

¶15

Criminal Appeal No.D-693-DB of 2015

¶16

their house whereas his son Jasbir Singh, son-in-law Inderjit Singh and one Hans Raj, mason, were sleeping in the courtyard. At that time lights of the house were on. On hearing the noise, the complainant woke up and saw Kulwinder Singh armed with kapa, Gurdeep Singh with .12 bore gun, Jang Singh, Jangir Singh, Sadhu Singh and Kakkar Singh armed with a dang each, Kartar Singh with a sword, Balwant Singh with a kapa, Jaswant Singh with a gandasa, Jagjit Singh, Kuldip Singh and Balbir Singh with a dang each, Gursharan Singh, brother-inlaw of Kulwinder Singh with a sword, Sardool Singh armed with a bala with 8/10 unidentified persons entered the house of the complainant with an intention to kill him. Gurdeep Singh fired gun shot with an intention to kill the complainant and he fell down. The complainant tried to run towards his room but Kulwinder Singh gave a kapa blow on his head. Sadhu Singh gave dang blow on the shoulder of the complainant. Bhola Singh gave a dang blow on the waist of the complainant. Kakkar Singh gave a dang blow to the complainant. The wife and daughter of the complainant got him released from the clutches of the accused. During the occurrence, Inderjit Singh and Jasbir Singh also received injuries at the hands of the remaining accused. The accused also tried to break open the door with the help of bala, besides trying to set the complainant and his family members ablaze by pouring kerosene on a piece of cloth wrapped on a stick. The accused also damaged tractor, fans, cots and walls. On hearing the alarm, Pritam Singh, brother of the complainant and some other persons reached the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled away

¶17

SATISH KUMAR 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

-3-

¶19

Criminal Appeal No.D-693-DB of 2015

¶20

from the spot, alongwith their respective weapons. According to the complainant his party had constructed brick wall in place of kacha wall and due to that reason all the accused, with an intent to kill him and his family members, caused injuries to their person. With the aforementioned allegations, complainant-Atma Singh made statement before SI Bhupinder Singh and on its basis FIR No. 171 dated 19.7.2013 under Sections 458/427/336/325/323/148/149 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the names of respondents No.7 and 8, namely, Gursharan Singh and Sardool Singh as accused were not stated by PW3 Darshan Singh and PW9 Jasbir Singh at the trial of the case. Merely because PW2 Atma Singh and PW4 Inderjit Singh had named them as accused is not sufficient to hold that they were present at the spot at the time of the occurrence. Further, the prosecution failed to bring on record any material from which it could be inferred that the accused had entered the house of the complainant at the time of the occurrence. Photographs Mark-1 to Mark-12 depicting the scattered bricks lying at the spot were not duly proved by the prosecution. As per the prosecution, seven to eight family members of the complainant were sleeping in the courtyard but in the photographs, only two cots were seen and even those cots were without any bedding. Further, though accused Kuldip Singh was said to have fired from his .12 bore gun in the air and one empty cartridge of . 12 bore was recovered from the place of occurrence yet PW7 HC

¶22

SATISH KUMAR 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

-4-

¶24

Criminal Appeal No.D-693-DB of 2015

¶25

Karnail Singh testified that the said cartridge was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Similarly, none of the article, stated to have been damaged by the accused during the occurrence, was produced during the trial.

¶26

In view of the above, no case is made out for convicting respondents-Gursharan Singh and Sardool Singh of the charges against them. Similarly, accused Kulwinder Singh, Jang Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sadhu Singh and Bhola Singh have been rightly acquitted of the charges under Sections 458, 336 and 427 IPC.

¶27

Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

¶28

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶29

January 11, 2016 satish

¶30

( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE

¶31

SATISH KUMAR 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Atma Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atma Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Vs State of Haryana

Surender @ Kala and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Yogender Alias Sonu Alias Bhuka Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Moji Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Deswal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Tirath Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.