Devinder Singh Vs State of Pb.

¶1

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶4

1. CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M)

¶5

Davinder S i ngh … Appellant Versus State of Pu n jab ... Respondent 2. CRR-2128-2004 (O&M) Gurdeep Si n gh … Petitioner Versus State of Pu n jab ... Respondent

¶6

Date of Decision :- 03.04.2025

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶8

Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate , for the appellant in CRA-D-399-DB-2004 and for the respondents in CRR-2128-2004.

¶9

Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punj a b.

¶10

Mr. H.S.Randhawa, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advoca t e, for the petitioner in CRR-212 8 -2004.

¶11

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

¶12

This judg m ent shall dispose of above- m entioned appeal as well as criminal re v ision, as it is the same very jud g ment dated 06.04.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge ( Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Faridkot, w hich is being assailed. While i n CRA-399-DB-2004, appellant

¶13

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶15

( 2 )

¶16

– Davinder Singh assails his conviction fo r offences under Sections 302, 458 IPC a n d under Section 27 of the Arm s Act, the petitioner – Gurdeep Singh in CRR-2128-2004 challenges the a cquittal of Gurpal Singh and Rahul Bh u pinder Singh and also seeks enhancement of sentence as imposed u p on Davinder Singh.

¶17

The matter arises out of FIR No.175 dat e d 15.07.2001, under Sections 302, 307, 4 58, 120-B, 34 IPC and Secti o n 25/27/30 of the Arms Act (Ex.PK/1) l odged on the basis of stateme n t (Ex.PK) of Gurdeep Singh. The transla t ed gist of the statement (Ex.P K ) leading to recording of FIR reads as un d er:

¶18

“I a m resident of village Rupana and I am into cultivation. We are 3 broth e rs and 5 sisters, who all are mar r ied. My elder brother Sukhdev Sing h has expired. I alongwith my bro t her’s family reside with parents, wher e as my elder brother Ajaib Sin g h resides separately at a short dista n ce from us. On 14.07.2001 at about 9.30 PM, our neighbour Gur m eet Singh came to our house. T h e electric bulb in the courtyard was g lowing. Davinder Singh son of G urpal Singh, who was carrying a 12 b o re double barrel gun accompani e d by his son Rahul Bhupinder Sing h @ Bhinda entered the gate of ou r house. Bhinda raised a lalkara exho r ting his companion that a lesson b e taught to Davinder Singh son of S u khdev Singh for teasing their da u ghter Navdeep Kaur. Davinder Sing h son of Gurpal Singh fired from h is 12 bore double barrel gun at my f a ther Naranjan Singh, who was si t ting on a cot and the shot hit on his f a ce. Davinder Singh reloaded hi s gun and fired another shot. In order to save ourselves, we hid in the v erandah. When we raised alarm kille d -killed, Davinder Singh and his s o n Bhinda went out of the house alon g with their gun. On hearing gun s h ots being fired, our neighbourer Bald e v Singh and Sohan Singh ca m e running towards our house. How e ver, Davinder Singh fired at the m as well in order to kill them and the p e llets hit Baldev Singh on the bac k of his right thigh and hit Sohan Sing h on his back, right buttock, back of both thighs as well as on his

¶19

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶21

( 3 )

¶22

lowe r legs and left wrist. Thereafter, D a vinder Singh and his son Bhinda ran t o wards their house with their gun. My brother Ajaib Singh took my fathe r Naranjan Singh, Baldev Singh a n d Sohan Singh to Civil Hospital, Muktsar for treatment where my father N aranjan Singh succumbed to his injuries. Sohan Singh and Baldev Si n gh were, however, admitted for treat m ent. The motive was that Davi n der Singh and others suspected that h is daughter Navdeep Kaur was having illicit relations with my neph e w Davinder Singh. Gurpal Sing h had handed over his licensed 12 bore d ouble barrel gun to his son Davin d er Singh and sent them to attack us w i th an intention to kill us. I was proceeding alongwith Sarpanch Nish a n Singh to lodge the report, whe n you met me. Action be taken. Sd/- G urdeep Singh.”

¶23

Pursuant to recording of the aforesaid stat e ment of Gurdeep Singh by SI Santokh Si n gh, formal FIR (Ex.PK/1) ca m e to be lodged. SI Santokh Singh pro c eeded to the hospital alongw i th other police officials and conducted inquest proceedings. The po s t-mortem examination on the dead body of Niranjan Singh was got con d ucted and thereafter the dead body was h anded over to the heirs of th e deceased. SI Santokh Singh visited the place of occurrence from wher e blood stained soil was lifted and prepar e d into parcel. Two empty c a rtridges were also taken into possession from inside the deori (gate) an d another two empty cartridges were picke d up from outside the gate in th e street, which were separately prepared i n to parcels. Accused Davi n der Singh was arrested on 18.07.2001 and upon interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PX) and pursuant thereto got recovere d a 12 bore double barrel gun. An Arms License in the name of Gurpal Si n gh (father of Davinder Singh) was also pr o duced, which was taken into p o ssession separately.

¶24

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶26

( 4 )

¶27

Upon conc l usion of investigation, challan w as presented against accused Davinder Singh son of Gurpal Singh, Rah u l Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda and Gurpa l Singh in the Court of Sub D ivisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar o n 28.08.2001, who committed th e case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 01.09.2001. Learne d Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar fr amed charges against Dav i nder Singh under Sections 458/302/30 7 IPC and under Section 25/2 7 of the Arms Act. Whereas Rahul Bhu p inder Singh and Gurpal Sin g h were charged for offences under Sect i ons 458 and 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 30 of the Arms Act on 03.10.20 0 1 to which they pleaded not guilty and c laimed trial.

¶28

The prosec u tion in order to establish its c ase examined as many as 15 PWs. The g ist of their statements is briefly referred to herein under:-

¶29

PW-1 Dr. N.R.Duggal, who had conduct e d post-mortem examination on the dead body of Naranjan Singh o n 15.07.2001, proved the postmo r tem report as Ex.PA, wherein h e described the injuries found on t he dead body of Naranjan Sin g h and opined that the cause of de a th was due to cardio respirator y arrest as a result of shock due to i njury to vital organ i.e. brain, which was sufficient to cause de a th in an ordinary course of nat u re. He also stated with regard to t he x-ray examination conduc t ed by him on 17.07.2001 in res p ect of injuries sustained by Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh.

¶30

PW-2 Dr. Jagrity, Medical Officer, Civi l Hospital, Muktsar, who had me d ico legally examined Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh on 14. 0 7.2001, proved their MLRs as E x.PF and Ex.PG respectively, wh e rein he described the injuries f o und on their person.

¶31

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶33

( 5 )

¶34

PW-3 Baldev Singh stated that about 4/5 months back, when he was goi n g towards market ( bazar ) at about 9.00 PM, he came to know tha t there had been firing, but he had not witnessed any occ u rrence. The said witness was, however, declared hostile and wa s permitted to be cross-examine d by the Public Prosecutor.

¶35

PW-4 Gu r deep Singh (complainant) stat e d in tune with the allegations got recorded by him in the FIR.

¶36

PW-5 Gu r mit Singh (eye-witness) state d that on 15.07.2001 at about 9.3 0 PM, he went to the house of Gurdeep Singh (complainant). He stated that when he was talking with Gurdeep Singh, his father Na r anjan Singh was sitting on a c ot in the courtyard, Davinder Sin g h who was carrying a double barrel gun and Rahul Bhupinder Sin g h empty handed came there. H e stated that Rahul Bhupinder Sin g h raised a lalkara exhorting h i s companion to teach a lesson for teasing their daughter Navdee p Kaur and thereafter accused Da v inder Singh son of Gurpal Sin g h fired a shot from his 12 bore do u ble barrel gun hitting Naranja n Singh on his face, forehead an d chest. He stated that accuse d Davinder Singh reloaded his gu n and fired another shot at hi m (Gurmit Singh) and Gurdeep Sin g h (complainant), but in order t o save themselves, they hid in the verandah . Thereafter Davinder Singh and his son Bhinda went out of the house alongwith their gu n . On hearing gun shots being fired, Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh came running towards co m plainant’s house. PW-2 desc r ibed the injuries sustained by Baldev Singh and Sohan Singh in the same manner as described by t he complainant.

¶37

PW-6 Su rj it Singh Gill, Draftsman, state d that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PL).

¶38

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶40

( 6 )

¶41

PW-7 Sat n am Singh, photographer, state d that he had visited the place of o ccurrence on 15.07.2001 and h a d taken photographs Ex.P1 to Ex. P 4 and proved negatives thereo f as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8.

¶42

PW-8 Da v inder Singh son of Sukhdev Si n gh, nephew of Gurdeep Singh (co m plainant) stated that about 1 y e ar ago, he had love affair with Na v deep Kaur, daughter of accuse d Davinder Singh and that she use d to make telephone call to his h ouse. He stated that when his mo t her complained to the wife o f accused Davinder Singh, he ca m e to their house and threate n ed them that if he (accused Da v inder Singh) saw him (PW-8 Davinder Singh) with his da u ghter Navdeep Kaur, then w h ole of their family would be eli m inated, as they are defaming hi s daughter.

¶43

PW-9 Pal w inder Singh son of Ajaib Sing h stated that on 15.07.2001, SI Sa n tokh Singh visited the place of occurrence and that apart from lift i ng blood stained soil, he had ta k en into possession two empty she l ls of 12 bore from the deori (g a te) and two other empties from out s ide the gate.

¶44

PW-10 Aj a ib Singh, brother of Gurdeep Singh (complainant) and son of Na r anjan Singh (deceased), stated that on 18.07.2001, when he we n t to the Police Station Sadar M uktsar, Ajit Singh, owner of Pet r ol Pump, produced accused Da v inder Singh and Gurpal Singh be fo re SI Santokh Singh. He s tated that Gurpal Singh and Da v inder Singh were interrogate d by SI Santokh Singh in his pre s ence. He further deposed re g arding the recoveries effected pur s uant to disclosure statemen t s made by accused during int e rrogation.

¶45

PW-11 HC Major Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex. P U in evidence, wherein he d e posed that on 22.07.2001, he wa s posted as MHC, Police Statio n Sadar Muktsar and that on the sai d day, HC Surinder Singh had handed him over the case

¶46

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶48

( 7 )

¶49

pro p erty including parcels contai n ing blood stained soil, empty car t ridges and 12 bore double bar r el gun. He further stated that on 26.07.2001, the case propert y was sent through Constable Gu r jant Singh for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Pu n jab, Chandigarh, but due to certain objections having been rai s ed by the said office, he (Con s table Gurjant Singh) returned tw o parcels containing blood stai n ed soil and simple soil with hi m . He stated that thereafter on 0 6.08.2001, after removing the obj e ctions, he had again handed over the said two parcels to Co n stable Gurjant Singh, which he deposited in the office of FSL, Pu n jab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the par c els remained in his possessio n , the same were not tampered wit h .

¶50

PW-12 Co n stable Gurjant Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered int o evidence his affidavit Ex.PV , wherein he deposed that on 26. 0 7.2001, MHC Major Singh ha d handed over to him the case pro p erty including parcels contain i ng 12 bore double barrel gun, em p ty cartridges, blood stained soi l and simple soil for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and that on the ne x t day i.e. 27.07.2001, he depo s ited the parcels containing 12 bor e double barrel gun and 4 emp t y cartridges in the said office, but due to certain objections havin g been raised by the said office in r espect of two parcels containin g blood stained soil and simple soi l , he returned the same with M H C Major Singh. He stated that the r eafter on 06.08.2001, MHC M ajor Singh after removing the obj e ctions had again handed over h im the said two parcels, which he deposited in the office of FS L , Punjab, Chandigarh on the sa m e day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tam p ered with.

¶51

PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh stated that on 15.07.2001, upon receipt of inf o rmation in the police station, he was associated the police

¶52

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶54

( 8 )

¶55

par t y headed by SI Santokh Si n gh and they started for the hos p ital, but they met Gurdeep Sin g h (complainant) and Sarpanch Nishan Singh near Kotkapura cho w k and SI Santokh Singh got rec o rded Gurdeep’s Singh stateme n t Ex.PK, on the basis of which FI R Ex.PK/1 came to be lodged. H e stated about the preparation of i nquest report by SI Santokh S i ngh and as regards the entire inv e stigation conducted by SI Sa n toskh Singh and also proved var i ous memos prepared during c o urse of the same. He stated wit h regard to the recoveries effe c ted pursuant to the disclosure sta t ement made by the accused D a vinder Singh. He also stated tha t he identified the signatures of S I Santokh Singh (since died).

¶56

PW-14 HC Surinder Singh, who is a f ormal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PAA in evidence, w herein he deposed that on 15. 0 7.2001, he was posted as MH C , Police Station Sadar Muktsar an d that on the said day, SI Santok h Singh had deposited with him the case property i.e. parcels conta i ning blood stained soil, simple ear t h, 4 empty cartridges of 1 2 bore. He stated that on 18. 0 7.2001, SI Santokh Singh ha d deposited with him a parcel co n taining 12 bore double barrel g un and that upon his transfer fro m Police Station Sadar Muktsa r to Police Lines, Muktsar, the cas e property was handed over to M ajor Singh.

¶57

PW-15 Gu r mit Singh, Sub Station Opera t or, 66 KV Grid, Sub Station, Ru p ana, produced the summone d record pertaining to electric supply and stated that there was ele c tric supply at 9.15 PM.

¶58

The prosec u tion after tendering into evid e nce reports of FSL (Ex.PBB, Ex.PCC & E x.PDD) closed its evidence.

¶59

Upon clos u re of the prosecution evidenc e , statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., w herein they denied the case of prosecutio n and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract from the

¶60

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶62

( 9 )

¶63

statement o f accused Davinder Singh rec o rded in terms of Section 313

¶64

Cr.P.C. is as under:

¶65

“I a m innocent. I am MA, B.Ed. and w as posted as Lecturer in a school of o u r village. My daughter Navdee p Kaur was graduate. After her exam i nation, she had gone to her mater n al parents about 1 month prior to the p r esent alleged occurrence. Gurd e ep Singh PW is adopted son of Man g al Singh, who owned 17-18 killas of land and he died issueless. 6- 7 ye a rs prior to the alleged occurrenc e , said Mangal Singh gave Rs.10 lakhs to PW Gurdeep Singh. Other b rothers of Gurdeep Singh were dema n ding share in the land and money from Gurdeep Singh which he inher i ted from Mangal Singh and on t hat account PW Gurdeep Singh was n ot on speaking terms with his bro t hers and father and was residing with h is family in his farm house at a di s tance of 1 and half KM from the place of occurrence. On 14.07.2001 at a bout 9.30 PM, there was electric suppl y breakdown in the village. T h ere was hue and cry about the arriv a l of Kala Kaccha thieves and t h e people due to fear and panic starte d firing indiscriminately. Naranj a n Singh also fired with his gun while going out in the street as a re s ult therefore, Sohan Singh and Bald e v Singh PWs were injured and in t hat exchange of firing, Naranjan Sing h sustained fire arm injuries and ca r ried to his courtyard and he died. His dead body was taken to CH Mukh t sar by his son Ajaib Singh alone and l e arnt from the doctor about the nat u re of fire arm. ASI Baljit Singh, sister ’ s son of Gurdeep Singh PW was called. Nishan Singh, Sarpanch of vi l lage Rupana was also called. S a id Sarpanch was closed to Mr. Park a sh Singh Badal, the then CM, P u njab. Our family opposed said Nish a n Singh in the elections. On that a ccount, Nishan Singh and others after deliberations, got me and other m embers of my family implicated in th e case. I and my father were b rought by the police alongwith licen s ed gun of my father on 15.07.20 0 1 and were illegally detained by the police. My brother Shivraj Sing h had given telegrams to higher authorities.”

¶66

Accused – G urpal Singh in his statement r e corded in terms of Section 313

¶67

Cr.P.C. wh i le professing his innocence ple a ded as under:

¶68

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶70

( 10 )

¶71

“I a m innocent. PWs are inimical tow a rds me and my family members. I alo n gwith my son Davinder Singh we r e brought from our house by the polic e on 15.07.2001 alongwith my licensed gun and cartridges. My son Shivraj Singh gave telegrams to hig h er authorities about our illegal deten t ion in this context.”

¶72

Accused – Rahul Bhupinder Singh in his s tatement recorded in terms of Section 31 3 Cr.P.C., while taking plea of alibi, pleaded as under:

¶73

“I a m innocent. At the time of allege d occurrence, I was less than 18 years of age as my date of birth is 08.08.1983. About 1 week prior to the occu r rence, I had gone to village Maujgarh to my maternal uncle Wakeel Sing h . I was arrested in the case on 1 6 .07.2001 from village Maujgarh. My u n cle Wakeel Singh moved applica t ions to higher authorities against my f alse implication. Bhupinder Si n gh, DSP, Muktsar conducted enqu i ry while visiting the spot and I was found to be innocent. Appl i cation Ex.DB was moved by SH O of P.S.Muktsar for getting me disch a rged and a supplementary report u nder Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was also m oved to the Court.”

¶74

In their de f ence, the accused have examin e d two witnesses. DW-1 DSP Bhupinder S ingh, who had conducted enqu i ry on an application moved by Wakeel Si n gh, stated that on 29.08.2001, h e had gone to village Rupana and upon i n vestigation, accused Rahul Bh u pinder Singh was found to be innocent, a s it was found that he was not present in the village and had gone to h i s maternal parents at village Maujgarh, Haryana. DW-2 Wakeel Si n gh stated that in the first we e k of July, 2001, his nephew Rahul Bhu p inder Singh had come to meet him at his village and that on 14.07.2001 , he was with him. He stated t h at on 15.07.2001, he came to know abou t his (Rahul Bhupinder Singh) i nvolvement in a case and that he had mo v ed an application for enquiry to SSP, Muktsar, which was marked to D SP Bhupinder Singh.

¶75

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶77

( 11 )

¶78

The learn e d trial Court, upon marshall i ng the evidence on record, acquitted G urpal Singh and Rahul Bhupin d er Singh of the charges framed against th e m, but held accused Davin d er Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 458 IPC and under Section 27 o f the Arms Act and sentenced h im as under:

¶79

Und 302 er IPC	Section	- To undergo life im Rs.2000/- and in de further RI for 3 mo prisonment and to pay a fine of fault of payment of fine to undergo nths.
Und 458 er IPC	Section	- To undergo rigoro and to pay a fin payment of fine to us imprisonment for seven years e of Rs.1000/- and in default of undergo further RI for 2 months
Und er	Section	- To undergo rigorou s imprisonment for three years and
27 of th	e Arms	to pay a fine of Rs .500/- and in default of payment of
Act		fine to undergo fur ther RI for 1 month

¶80

Learned co u nsel for the appellant – Davi n der Singh, while assailing his conviction, submitted that he has falsely b een implicated in the present case and th a t falsity of the case would be e v ident from the fact that one of the star wi t nesses of the prosecution na m ely PW-3 Baldev Singh, who was imme d iate neighbour of the complain a nt, did not support the case of prosecutio n at all. It has further been sub m itted that even the other eyewitness na m ely PW-5 Gurmit Singh had b een introduced falsely, which would be e v ident from the fact that he has s tated the date of occurrence to be 15.07.2 0 01, whereas the occurrence i n question had taken place on 14.07.2001 . It has been submitted that e ven the Investigating Officer namely SI S antokh Singh has not been ex a mined by the prosecution and that as suc h , given the fact that there is del a y in sending the case property including b lood stained soil etc. to the F S L, wherein certain objections had been r a ised, no sanctity can be attac h ed to such kind of evidence.

¶81

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶82

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶83

( 12 )

¶84

Learned c o unsel submitted that in fact as on the date of alleged occurrence, a group of thieves and dacoits h ad come to the village and due to panic, vi l lagers started firing indiscrimi n ately, wherein Naranjan Singh also fired f rom his gun and it was duri n g the exchange of firing that Naranjan S ingh sustained injuries and lo s t his life. It has, thus, been submitted t h at the impugned judgment cou l d not sustain and is liable to be set aside.

¶85

Opposing t he appeal, learned State coun s el submitted that it is a case where not o nly the complainant PW-4 Gu r deep Singh has stated in tune with the al l egations leveled in the FIR, e v en PW-5 Gurmit Singh, who resided in n eighbourhood, has fully suppor t ed the case of prosecution and has narrate d the occurrence identically an d that the slight discrepancy in the mentio n ing of the date of occurrence, w hich is stated to be 15.07.2001 instead of 1 4.07.2001 is merely on accoun t of mistake, which could have occurred d u e to the fact that he was deposing in the Court after a gap of more than 1½ years. It has been sub m itted that the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 14.07.200 1 is fortified from the medical evidence i n asmuch as PW-2 Jagrity, M e dical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar st a ted that deceased as well as in j ured Sohan Singh and Baldev Singh were brought in hospital on 14.07.2 0 01. Even the opinion of PW-1 Dr. N.R.D u ggal as regards time of deat h is in tune with the case of prosecutio n that the death of Naranjan Singh had taken place on 14.07.2001 . It has, thus, been submitt e d that having regard to the consistent o cular version as given by the complainant (PW-4 Gurdeep

¶86

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶87

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶88

( 13 )

¶89

Singh) and PW-5 Gurmit Singh, which is fully corroborated from the medical ev i dence, the case of the prosecu t ion is fully established as had been held by the trial Court.

¶90

We have c onsidered rival submissions a d dressed before this Court and with the as s istance of learned counsel hav e also perused the record of the case.

¶91

Since it is a case of homicidal death on account of gun-shot fire, it is apposite to first of all briefly refer to th e medical evidence led by the prosecutio n in this regard. PW-1 Dr. N.R. D uggal, who had conducted the post-morte m examination on the dead bod y of Naranjan Singh, proved the post-morte m report as Ex.PA and describe d the injuries found on the dead body as un d er:

¶92

“1. Multi p le lacerated wound present in an are a of approximately 20”x20” over the face m ainly right side, right temporal regio n forehead neck, upper part of chest and right shoulder. They were about 25 i n number. Their sizes vary from .02 to .02 cms to 1x0.2 cm margins of wound i nverted except 3 wounds on the left side of the neck which have E verted margi n s. Blood clot and liquid blood was oozin g out on pressing these wounds. On dissection, there were two holes in the te m poral bone on the right side. Midd l e minengial artery was torn, cranial cavit y contain blood. Covering of the brai n had lacerated wounds in the same area. Two pellets recovered from brain t i ssue. 2 cms from the surface and tracks were found leading to the wounds i n covering of the brains. There was fractu r e right mistored bone correspondin g to the lacerated bone on the bridge of no s e. A pellet was recovered from nas a l cavit. One pellet recovered from the m u scle of the right shoulder.”

¶93

PW-1 Dr. N .R.Duggal while describing th e injuries specifically stated as regards rec o very of pellets from the dead b ody which is in tune with the case of pro s ecution. In any case, the factu m of death on account of firing

¶94

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶95

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶96

( 14 )

¶97

of gun-sh o t is not disputed by Davin d er Singh (accused) although Davinder Singh in his statement recorded i n terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has given a different version regarding the o ccurrence of firing.

¶98

The occur r ence is sought to be establ i shed from the testimony of complaina n t (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh), who i s son of the deceased and was present in t h e house when the occurrence h ad taken place. Given the fact that the oc c urrence had taken place in th e house of Gurdeep Singh, his presence therein is most natural and cann o t be doubted. While narrating the occurre n ce, PW-4 Gurdeep Singh speci f ically stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.07.2001 when he alo n gwith PW-5 Gurmit Singh was present in his house, then accused Davi n der Singh alongwith his son Rahul Bhu p inder Singh entered into their h ouse. He stated that pursuant to a lalka r a raised by Rahul Bhupinde r Singh, his father (Davinder Singh), wh o was carrying a gun, fired fro m the same hitting the deceased. PW-4 further stated that one more shot wa s fired in their house, but he as well as P W -5 Gurmit Singh managed to s a ve themselves by taking cover in the vera n dah and that thereafter when t hey raised alarm, the accused went out i n the street and since two mor e neighbourers namely Baldev Singh and S ohan Singh had also been attra c ted on account of noise of gun firing, accused fired two shots at them as w ell as a result of which both of them sustai n ed injuries. The aforesaid ver s ion is fully corroborated from the testimo n y of PW-5 Gurmit Singh.

¶99

Although PW-3 Baldev Singh was injured in the occurrence and was also cited as a p rosecution witness, but when h e stepped into the witness-box,

¶100

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶101

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶102

( 15 )

¶103

he did not support the case of prosecu t ion. PW-3 resiled from his statement a nd stated that he had just com e to know about the firing, but had not wi t nessed any occurrence. The af o resaid statement is apparently false inasm u ch as he himself was injured i n the occurrence, as is borne out from the m e dical evidence in the shape of t estimony of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity, Medical O f ficer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, who had medically examined Baldev Sin g h on 14.07.2001 itself and fou n d the following injuries on his person:

¶104

“1. A lacerated wound .2 cm x .2 cm on ba c k of right thigh 15 cm above the knee j oint. Fresh bleeding was present. ”

¶105

PW-2 Dr. Jagrity was cross-examined o n behalf of the accused, but nothing su b stantial could be elicited du r ing the course of her crossexaminatio n so as to either doubt her ve r acity or her opinion. Having regard to the aforesaid position, whe r ein the testimonies of the complaina n t (PW-4 Gurdeep Singh) and of PW-5 Gurmit Singh alongwith medical ev i dence in the shape of statement of PW-2 Dr. Jagrity shows the presence o f PW-3 Baldev Singh, it is app a rent that PW-3 Baldev Singh had depos e d falsely in the Court to hel p the accused. As such, his statement n eed not be relied upon. The r e is no other evidence to the contrary so as to doubt the veracity of the testimonies of PW-4 Gurdeep Singh and P W-5 Gurmit Singh.

¶106

Although l e arned counsel attempted to as s ail the case of prosecution on the ground that the Investigating Officer S I Santokh Singh has not been examined b y the prosecution, but this Cour t finds that it was on account of

¶107

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶108

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶109

( 16 )

¶110

the fact th a t SI Santokh Singh had expire d that he was not examined, as has been s tated by PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh, who had remained associated with SI Santokh Singh durin g investigation. PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh has stated in detail wi t h regard to the investigation conducted b y SI Santokh Singh and has i dentified the signatures of SI Santokh Si n gh. In any case, the factum o f the accused having suffered disclosure s tatement and the recovery pur s uant thereto is also borne out from the t e stimonies of PW-10 Ajaib Sin g h and PW-13 HC Balwinder Singh. U n der these circumstances, non-e x amination of SI Santokh Singh will not de n t the case of prosecution in an y manner particularly when it is a case bas e d on eye-witness account an d not solely on circumstantial evidence w here the role of the investigat o r would assume all the more importance .

¶111

As far as d elay in submitting the case pr o perty in FSL is concerned, a perusal of the testimonies of PW-11 H C Major Singh and PW-12 Constable G urjant Singh does show that th e re is some delay in depositing of case pro p erty on account of the fact th a t some objections were raised by the lab o ratory in respect of two parcel s containing blood stained soil and simple soil and thereafter the said t w o parcels were sent again for depositing i n the FSL after removal of obje c tions. Both PW-11 HC Major Singh and PW-12 Constable Gurjant Sin g h have stated that as long as case prope r ty remained in their possessio n , the same was not tampered with. A p e rusal of the report of FSL w o uld indicate that sample seals were intact and were not tampered with. There is nothing on record to

¶112

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶113

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶114

( 17 )

¶115

show that t h ere has been any kind of tamp e ring or substitution of the case property as the seals were found to be inta c t. Under these circumstances, the delay i p so facto would not affect the ca s e of prosecution.

¶116

Coming to t he defence plea raised by Davi n der Singh, appellant Davinder Singh in hi s statement recorded in terms o f Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a plea that on 14.07.2001, a group of da c oits comprising Kala Kaccha gang had c ome to the village and the pe o ple due to fear started firing indiscrimin a tely and that Naranjan Singh also fired with his gun and it was due t o exchange of firing that Nar a njan Singh had lost his life. However, said plea is not substantiated in a n y manner inasmuch as in case dacoits h a d come to the village a n d the villagers had fired indiscrimin a tely, there would have been s ome report with the police in this regard. Neither any PW stated in thi s regard nor any other witness had been e x amined to establish the afores a id plea of firing on account of arrival of t h e Kala Kaccha thieves/dacoit s in the village on 14.07.2001. As such, t h e said plea raised by Davinde r Singh that the deceased died due to exc h ange of firing on arrival of the K ala Kaccha thieves/dacoits in the village i s absolutely hollow and is not s u bstantiated.

¶117

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this C ourt finds that the case of the prosecutio n stands fully established from the consistent testimonies of PW-4 Gur d eep Singh (complainant) and P W -5 Gurmit Singh, which stand substantiat e d from the medical evidence. The report of FSL (Ex.PCC) establishes that the empty cartridges reco v ered from the spot had been fired from the gun recovered from accus e d. The fact that one of the

¶118

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶119

CRA-D-399-DB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-2128-2004 (O& M )

¶120

( 18 )

¶121

injured/eye - witness had resiled would not affect the case of prosecution. The defence plea is far from substantiated. As such, the findings of the trial Court a s regards guilt of appellant Davinder Singh do not warrant any interferenc e and are hereby affirmed. Fin d ing no merit in the appeal, the same is her e by dismissed.

¶122

As far as r e vision filed on behalf of the c o mplainant seeking reversal of the finding s in respect of acquittal of Gur p al Singh and Rahul Bhupinder Singh is c o ncerned, the evidence on recor d would not justify reversal of the findin g s of acquittal, as there is ha r dly any credible evidence to establish t h eir involvement in the matte r . As regards prayer of the complaina n t for enhancement of sentence in respect of Davinder Singh is concerned, the instant case would not fall i n the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ so as to justify the death penalty. Consequently, the revision is found to be sans merits and is hereby dismi s sed.

¶123

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE

¶124

03.04.2025 Vimal

¶125

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

¶126

JUDGE

¶127

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶128

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.04 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Devinder Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devinder Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs Partap Singh

Partap Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mukesh etc. Vs State of Hy.

Tek Chand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Gurdeep Singh Vs Devinder Singh & Ors.