Dismissed

Gulzar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2020CRA-D/585/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal filed by Gulzar Singh against his conviction for murder and attempted murder. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant's claim of self-defence was not established. Concurrently, the Court noted that the other appellant, Major Singh, had been acquitted

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Gulzar Singh under Sections 302, 307 IPC upheld.

Gulzar Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRA-D-585-DB of 2009 Reserved on : 03.03.2020 Date of decision : 04.03.2020

¶4

Gulzar Singh and another

¶5

.... Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for appellant No.1.

¶12

Mr. Vivek Saini, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

¶15

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 20.01.2009 and order dated 21.01.2009, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions Case No. 52/2006 dated 20.12.2006. Appellants Gulzar Singh and Major Singh along with co-accused Joginder Singh, Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh and Gianpal Singh were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `IPC'). Appellant Gulzar Singh was also

¶16

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶17

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -2-

¶18

charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶19

Appellant Gulzar Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) under Section 302 IPC, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two and half years. Appellant Major Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) under Section 302 IPC, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one and half years. Appellant Gulzar Singh was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one and half years. Appellant Major Singh was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The period of sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, appellants Gulzar Singh and Major Singh were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 149 IPC. Appellant Gulzar Singh was also acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Co-accused Joginder Singh, Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh and Gianpal Singh were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The prayer of appellant Gulzar Singh for ordering concurrent running of

¶20

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶21

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -3-

¶22

sentence with the sentence awarded to him under the NDPS Act was rejected by the trial court.

¶23

During the pendency of this appeal, the Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal, was ordered to find out whether appellant Major Singh was juvenile on the date of commission of offence or not. Accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal, came to the conclusion that appellant Major Singh was juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.01.2019, the instant appeal qua appellant Major Singh was allowed. His conviction and sentence was set aside and he was acquitted of the charges.

¶24

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 30.09.2006 at about 10.00 AM, a quarrel took place between Gur Lal Singh and Jan Pal Singh in the premises of Gurudawara Singh Sabha at Nissing. Complainant Major Singh along with his nephew Sukhpal Singh went to Dera (Farm House) Hazoor Singh at Guniana Road, Gonder, travelling on a motor cycle on the same day at about 4.30 PM. Gurmukh Singh also resided in the same Dera. Gurmukh Singh, Gur Lal Singh, Pardeep Singh, Gurjit Singh, Davinder Singh, Jan Pal Singh, Joga Singh and Kuldeep Singh also reached there. They started proceeding towards the Dera of Gulzar Singh on foot to lodge protest regarding the incident which took place in the Gurudawara. At about 5.30 PM, when they were proceeding through the agricultural land belonging to Pind Singh, Gulzar Singh and Major Singh residents of Dera Gonder came there from the side of their Dera, travelling on a motor cycle. Major Singh was driving the motor cycle. Gulzar Singh armed with a gun was pillion rider. Joginder Singh, Janpal Singh and Harbhajan Singh alias

¶25

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶26

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -4-

¶27

Bhajan Singh, who were following them, also reached the place of occurrence. They were armed with lathis . All of them raised a lalkara. Gulzar Singh asked Major Singh to stop the motor cycle. Thereafter, Gulzar Singh fired with a 12 bore gun aiming towards Sukhpal Singh. Sukhpal Singh sustained bullet injuries on his right side ribs. He collapsed. Gulzar Singh was firing with his gun continuously. Gur Lal, Pardeep Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jan Pal Singh, Davinder Singh and Gurjit Singh also sustained bullet injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. Sukhpal Singh was taken to General Hospital, Karnal. He succumbed to bullet injuries on his way to the hospital. Remaining injured persons were taken to Community Health Center, Nissing. They were got medico legally examined and were referred to General Hospital, Karnal, for X-ray examination. Post-mortem examination on the body of Sukhpal Singh was conducted on 01.10.2006. The pellets which were recovered from the body of the deceased and injured were taken into possession. Gulzar Singh made disclosure statement. He got recovered a DBBL 12 bore gun along with two live cartridges and its licence. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

¶28

The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to appellant Gulzar Singh, all the injured had conspired against him. They had come from the Dera of Gurmukh Singh to humiliate them. He was going on a motor cycle. He was way-laid. He ran towards his Dera. He was chased. His motor cycle was damaged. He brought his gun and fired shots towards those who were

¶29

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶30

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -5-

¶31

damaging his motor cycle and had tried to attack him. He was convicted and sentenced, as noticed here-in-above. Hence, this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No.1 has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.

¶34

PW.1 Dr. Rakesh Kumar medico legally examined Gurmukh Singh. He noticed following injuries on his person:-

¶35

“(1) Clean cut rounded wound of .3 x .3 cm surrounded by contusion of 1 x 1 cm circular skin colour was present at 7 cm proximal to right elbow joint on ventral aspect of right arm. Fresh bleeding was present.

¶36

(2) Clean cut rounded wound of .2 x .2 cm surrounded by contusion of 2 x 2 cm circular skin colour was present at 9 cm proximal to right wrist joint at dorsal aspect of right forearm. Fresh bleeding was present.

¶37

(3) Clean cut rounded wound of .2 x .2 cm surrounded by contusion of 2.5 x 2.5 cm circular skin colour was present at lateral aspect of left forearm in middle. Fresh bleeding was present.

¶38

(4) Clean cut circular wound of .2 x .2 cm was present at lateral aspect of right leg, 12 cm distal to right knee and was surrounded by contusion of 1 x 1 cm and blackish colour was present around the wound.

¶39

(5) Clean cut circular wound of .3 x .3 cm was present at anterio lateral aspect of right leg surrounded by black margins and contusion of 1.5 x 1.5 cm skin colour.

¶40

(6) Clean cut circular wound of .2 x .2 cm was present at

¶41

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶42

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -6-

¶43

dorsal aspect of right foot in middle and surrounded by black margins.

¶44

(7) Clean cut circular wound of .2 x .2 cm surrounded by black margins and contusion of 2 x 2 cm skin colour was present at anterior aspect of left leg in middle.

¶45

(8) Punctured wound of .2 x .25 cm surrounded by black margins and contusion of 1 x 1 cm bright red in colour was present at left chest 6 cm medial to left nipple.”

¶46

All the injuries were subjected to X-ray and Surgeon opinion. The probable duration of injuries was within six hours. MLR of Gurmukh Singh is Ex.PA. He also medico legally examined Pardeep Singh. He noticed following injury on his person:-

¶47

“(1) Lacerated wound of .4 x .5 cm bright red in colour surrounded by 2.5 x 3 cm contusion of skin colour was present at left forehead 3 cm superior to lateral canthus of left eye.”

¶48

The injury was subjected to X-ray and Surgeon opinion. The probable duration of injury was within six hours. MLR of Pardeep Singh is Ex.PB. He also medico legally examined Davinder Singh and noticed following injury on his person:-

¶49

“(1) A lacerated wound .5 x .4 cm surrounded by contusion of 2 x 2.5 cm bright red in colour was present at middle of right neck, 6 cm right lateral to mid line. Clotted blood was present.”

¶50

The injury was subjected to X-ray and Surgeon opinion. The probable duration of injury was within six hours. MLR of Davinder Singh is Ex.PC. He also medico legally examined Gurjit Singh and noticed following injuries on his person:-

¶51

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶52

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -7-

¶53

“(1) A lacerated wound of .5 x .4 cm bright red in colour surrounded with black margins and contusion of 1.5 x 1.75 cm bright red in colour was present at 6 cm right lateral to midline at right back and 19 cm superior posterial to right anterior iliac spine.

¶54

(2) Punctured wound of .25 x .25 cm surrounded by blackish margins and contusion of 1 x 1 cm of bright red colour was present at right leg at anterior aspect in middle 14 cm inferior to right tibial tuberosity, clotted blood was present.”

¶55

The injuries were subjected to X-ray, Surgeon and Ortho opinion. The probable duration of injuries was within six hours. MLR of Gurjit Singh is Ex.PD. He also medico legally examined Jan Pal and noticed following injury on his person:-

¶56

“(1) Punctured wound of .25 x .3 cm bright red in colour was present at right aspect of chin anteriorly 3 cm inferior to right lip angle of mouth. ”

¶57

The injury was subjected to X-ray and Surgeon opinion. The probable duration of injury was within six hours. MLR of Jan Pal is Ex.PE. He also medico legally examined Gurlal Singh and noticed following injury on his person:-

¶58

“(1) Punctured wound of .25 x .25 cm bright red in colour surrounded by blackish margins and contusions of 1 x 1.25 cm bright red in colour was present at left elbow joint ventro lateral aspect 4 cm left latero to midline of elbow.”

¶59

The injury was subjected to X-ray and Ortho opinion. The probable duration of injury was within six hours. MLR of Gurlal Singh is Ex.PF. In his crossexamination, he deposed that injuries on the persons of Pardeep Singh,

¶60

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶61

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -8-

¶62

Gurjit Singh, Jan Pal Singh and Gurlal Singh could be result of stray bullet. 9. PW.5 Dr. S.K. Khurana along with Dr. S.H. Sehgal conducted the post-mortem examination. They found following injuries on the body of the deceased :-

¶63

“(1) Multiple oval laceration of varying sizes .4 cm .8 cm on left side of the chest and abdomen in the area of 15 ½ x 11 inch with inverted marginal with blackening around present.

¶64

(2) Two abrasions (i) 1.5 cm oval 9 cm below right knee on anterior side (ii) 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm oval 2 cm supro medial to (i).

¶65

(3) .5 cm oval lacerated wound on anterio medial left leg 5 cm supro anterior to medial melleolous margins inverted with blackening present around.”

¶66

On opening of the chest on the left side multiple pellets of size around .3 cm embedded in inter coastal muscles were recovered. The peritoneum was full of blood with few pellets in cavity. The cause of death in their opinion was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries on vital organs, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries were antemortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes whereas between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. Ex.PL is the copy of post mortem report. A sealed parcel with the seal of FSL was opened during his examination-in-chief, out of which a vial containing pellets was taken out. The pellets were shown to him. According to him, these were the same, which were extracted from the body of Sukhpal. According to him, the injuries mentioned could be caused by firearm.

¶67

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶68

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -9-

¶69

PW.2 Pawan Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.PH.

¶70

PW.6 Major Singh is the eye witness. He deposed that on 30.09.2006 at 10.00 AM, there was a dispute between Jan Pal and Gurlal Singh in the Gurudawara Nissing. At 4.00 PM on the same day, he along with his nephew Sukhpal had gone to Gurudawara situated at Gonder Road. Gurudawara was near the Dera of Gurmukh Singh. In the Gurudawara, Gurmukh, Davinder Singh, Janpal Singh, Gurlal Singh, Pardeep Singh, Gurjit Singh, Joga Singh, Lakha Singh and Kuldeep Singh were present. All these persons left the Gurudawara. They saw Major Singh coming on motor cycle. Gulzar Singh was pillion rider carrying 12 bore gun. Joginder Singh, Bhajan Singh and Janpal Singh were following Gulzar Singh and Major Singh. They were carrying lathis . Gulzar Singh asked Major Singh to stop the motor cycle. Gulzar Singh came down from the motor cycle. He fired at them. One bullet hit Sukhpal Singh. Sukhpal Singh collapsed. Gulzar Singh kept on firing from his gun. Davinder Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jan Pal Singh, Pardeep Singh, Gurjit Singh and Gur Lal suffered injuries. They raised alarm. Accused ran away from the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were large number of Gurudawaras in village Nissing. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PO.

¶71

PW.8 Gurmukh Singh corroborated the statement of PW.6 Major Singh regarding the manner in which accused Gulzar Singh had fired on Sukhpal Singh and six other persons including himself. In his crossexamination, he deposed that the quarrel had taken place between Janpal and Gurlal Singh at 10.30 AM.

¶72

PW.10 Raghbir Singh Inspector deposed that he reached the

¶73

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶74

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -10-

¶75

mortuary on 30.09.2006. He got recorded the statement of Major Singh vide Ex.PO, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PR was recorded. Body was sent for post-mortem examination. He came to know that six injured persons were admitted in CHC Nissing. He went there. Dr. Rakesh Kumar handed over to him one ruqa Ex.PG along with six MLRs. He visited the spot. Four empty cartridges and one motor cycle of make Hero Honda were recovered. These were taken into possession. Accused Gulzar Singh was arrested on 05.10.2006 from Bajnara Bus Stand. He was interrogated. He made disclosure statement Ex.PX, on the basis of which he got recovered one 12 bore gun along with two live cartridges and licence of the gun. These were taken into possession. The other accused were also arrested.

¶76

According to the FSL report Ex.PN, exhibit-1a (Shirt), exhibit1b (Banian), exhibit-2a (Chadra), exhibit-2b (Fatui), exhibit-3a (Shirt), exhibit-3b (Banian), exhibit-3c (Pants) and exhibit-3d (underwear) were stained with blood. Traces of blood were too small for serological examination on exhibit-3e (Kada etc.).

¶77

As per FSL report Ex.PN/2, the firing mechanism of 12 bore DBBL gun marked W/1 was found in working order. 12 bore fired cartridge cases marked C/1, C/3 and C/2, C/4 were fired from left and right barrels respectively of 12 bore DBBL gun marked W/1 and not from any other fire arm even of same make and bore. The hole on the shirt and banian contained in parcel No.I was caused by lead pellet projectile. The holes on the jacket and chadra contained in parcel No. II were caused by lead pellet projectiles. Holes on the shirt, Banian, pants and underwear contained in parcel No. III were caused by shot gun projectiles. The pellets contained in

¶78

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶79

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -11-

¶80

parcel No. IV were found to be fired lead pellets of size (I). Such pellets are usually loaded in shotgun cartridge including 12 bore.

¶81

The incident was seen by PW.6 Major Singh and PW.8 Gurmukh Singh. According to them, accused Major Singh was driving the motor cycle. Appellant Gulzar Singh was the pillion rider. He was carrying 12 bore DBBL gun. He fired at Sukhpal Singh. Sukhpal Singh died. Complainant Major Singh and five other persons also received injuries. They were medico legally examined by PW.1 Dr. Rakesh Kumar. The injuries received by them have already been discussed. The cause of death of Sukhpal Singh was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries on vital organs, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes whereas between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. The gun was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant Gulzar Singh vide Ex.PX. According to the FSL report Ex.PN/2, the gun recovered from the appellant was used in the crime.

¶82

The contention of the appellant that he had fired in self defence has not been proved. According to PW.6 Major Singh and PW.8 Gurmukh Singh, appellant Gulzar Singh had started firing. He firstly shot at Sukhpal Singh. Sukhpal Singh collapsed. Thereafter, appellant Gulzar Singh kept on firing from his 12 bore DBBL gun.

¶83

The prosecution has proved its case against appellant Gulzar Singh beyond reasonable doubt.

¶84

Accordingly, the appeal qua appellant Gulzar Singh is

¶85

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

¶86

CRA-D-585-DB-2009 -12-

¶87

dismissed. His conviction and sentence are upheld. He is already in custody. However, as mentioned in para 3 of this judgment, the appeal qua Major Singh was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2019.

¶88

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE

¶89

March 04, 2020 ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) ndj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶90

NAROTAM DASS 2020.03.16 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

Gulzar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulzar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana

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

Ap Selbum Vs State of Haryana

State Bank of India Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Thapar Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Nachhattar Singh Alias Gora Vs State of Punjab

Birender Singh & Ors. Vs State of Hry.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana