State of Haryana Vs Jasvir Singh and Ors.

FIR No.	Dated P	olice Station	Section
40	26.03.2008 R	ori	147, 148, 452, 323, 506, 436, 427, 295-A, 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
Criminal before the	Case number Sessions Court	37-SC of 20	12
CIS No.		30/2013
Date of D	ecision	29.01.2015
Names of	accused	Jasvir Singh, Pathi Pritam Sarjeet Sing Gurvinder S Singh, Nora Singh, Suk Himmat Sin	Nayab Singh, Kulwant Singh, Tarsem Singh, Singh, Makhan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, h, Pala Singh, Foji Singh, Baldev Singh, ingh, Bikar Singh, Mahama Singh, Binder ng Singh, Deep Singh, Jeet Singh, Maghar hpal Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Sukha Singh, gh, Kimat Singh and Jassa Singh

¶17

Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2015 passed by the trial Court, the State had come up before this Court by filing the present leave to appeal and at that time it was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.

¶18

By order dated 23.03.2017, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court had issued notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as in the application for leave to appeal. Thereafter, another Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated

¶19

�

¶20

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶22

2

¶23

20.02.2018, had allowed the application for condonation of delay and condoned the delay and had also called record of the trial Court. After that, the present leave to appeal is pending and no notice was issued in the same.

¶24

Today, we have heard the counsel for the State. To ascertain that whether CRM-A1089-MA-2015 which is leave to appeal deserves to be allowed, to be admitted or it has to be dismissed at this stage itself.

¶25

We have also gone through the trial Court’s record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

¶26

The FIR was registered on 26.03.2008 at Police Station Rori. The allegations in the FIR were about receiving a phone call on 25.03.2008 at 10:00 p.m. in which it was informed that a scuffle is going on at Machhi Patti in village Rori between Dera and Gurudawara followers regarding Naam Charcha. On receiving this information, the Inspector SHO Sanjay Kumar (PW8) along with other police officials proceeded towards the place of quarrel. On reaching, they noticed a car which was parked in the house of complainant had been put on fire and even a shop was also put on fire. With great difficulty, the fire was brought under control. At that stage, Om Parkash, PW1 gave a written complaint to the Inspector/SHO Sanjay Kumar- PW8 in which he mentioned that he is a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. On that day, near his house, one Dharampal who first organizing a religious congregation at around 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the congregation was to the followers of Dera Premi. Because of this, he along with his son Vinod Kumar, his nephew Rohtash Kumar, Jagsir Singh, Bansi Singh, Inderpal and lot of other dera premis men and women in huge number were present in this congregation. They had also put a loudspeaker and were listening the naam charcha. At around 8:00 to 9:00 p.m, the voices started coming from the loudspeaker installed in the Gurudwara and it was stated against the congregation and Dharampal was warned that the Sikh community i.e. Jat Sikh would not let this congregation on naam to take place in their area. The loudspeaker installed in the Gurudwara also made an announcement that all the persons from Sikh Community should reach at the venue of congregation where Naam Charcha was going on, in the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda. Such announcement was made 2-3 times. On hearing, they stopped the naam charcha. People started leaving for their house to avoid any untoward incident. The complainant stated that he also started going back to his home along with his son and at around 9:00 p.m he found a large number of people had gathered outside his house. In the lights which were switched on, he noticed that such people were carrying swords, dandas, lathies, spears, rods, brickbats etc. They were also raising lalkaras and on this, they broke open the main door of his

¶27

�

¶28

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶29

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶30

3

¶31

house and entered inside his house and started throwing bricks and stones. They had also put on fire a Maruti car which was parked in the courtyard of his house and also put his shop on fire but he kept on concealing in another room by shutting the door and kept on looking at the demolition and other activities from the windows. Because of this incident, an environment of fear had taken place in the neighbour and lot of people from the village had started gathering. In between, those people who assembled on the announcement from the Gurudwara Sahib had also inflicted injuries and also caused injuries to such persons who had assembled there to save the complainant. They also threatened them that today they did not kill them, however, in future if they again start any congregation on naam charcha, then they would deal with them. Complainant Om Parkash further informed the police that his religious feelings have been hurt. The above said people and other accomplices have entered in his house, shop and have put his shop and car on fire and they have also broken a scooter and these people have also caused injuries to a number of dera followers and he sought action.

¶32

After investigation, the police arraigned 25 persons as accused and launched prosecution against them by filing a police report under Section 173 Cr.PC. By order dated 26.11.2012, learned trial Court framed charges against all the 25 people for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 436, 427, 323, 324, 325, 506, 295-A, 296 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were put to the accused who did not plead guilty and claimed trial. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court did not find the prosecution evidence convincing and proved and acquitted all the accused of all the above said charges. Feeling aggrieved, the State had come up before this Court.

¶33

The prosecution examined PW6 Dr. S.L. Aggarwal, a private practitioner at Rania. He stated that on 26.03.2008, he had conducted X-ray examination of Nikka Singh and he found a fracture of left humerus bone in its lower part but did not find any other fracture. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no X-ray films on the judicial file, however, he volunteered that the same had been handed over to the police. He stated that as per record it was handed over to the police on 28.04.2008 but he could not tell the name of the police official to whom it was handed over. He could not rule out the possibility of the bone injury on the person of Nikka Singh by fall on surface/ground.

¶34

The prosecution examined PW9 Dr. Pawan Kumar, Medical Officer, CMO Office, Fatehabad. He testified that on 26.03.2008 Nikka Singh was admitted in General Hospital, Sirsa and he remained under his treatment from 26.03.2008 to 28.03.2008. He tendered in evidence the bed head ticket as Ex. PW9/A containing five pages. In his

¶35

�

¶36

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶37

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶38

4

¶39

cross-examination, he admitted that he did not conduct the MLR of Nikka Singh and it was conducted by some other doctors prior to his admission in General Hospital, Sirsa. He also stated that he did not get any history of assault as to who had caused injuries to Nikka Singh. He further stated that on 29.03.2008 Nikka Singh left the hospital without his permission.

¶40

The prosecution examined Dr. Ravinder Singh as PW 11 who tendered in evidence his affidavit and mentioned about lacerated wound on Nikka Singh and one injury on his left elbow, one injury on middle side of left hand, one lacerated wound on index finger and one superficial sharp wound on medical side of left wrist/joint. The said affidavit was tendered in evidence as Ex. PW11/A and copy of the MLR of Nikka Singh was tendered in evidence as PW11/B and PW11/C. He further stated that on 24.09.2008 based on an application moved by the police, he declared the injury No.2 to be grievous in nature vide his opinion Ex. PW11/E. In his cross-examination, he admitted that injuries No.1, 2, 3 and 5 are on the left side and the possibility of injury No.5 on the person of Nikka Singh could be caused by fall on hard surface. Similarly possibility of injury No.4 on the person of Nikka Singh could be caused by fall on hard surface. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had examined Amarjit Singh and had found injuries on his person i.e. lacerated wound on his left side of forehead and he was complaining of pain in the neck. He tendered in evidence the MLR of Amarjit Singh as Ex.D1. In cross-examination by the counsel for the complainant, he admitted that injuries No.2 and 3 could be result of various pathology and he admitted it to be correct that injury No.1 could be caused if a person falls on the hard surface in a mass moving.

¶41

The prosecution examined Dr. Savneet Gill as PW14. He stated that he examined Nikka Singh and stated that on 26.03.2008 earlier he had declared Nikka Singh unfit to make statement but on the same application on 28.03.2008 he declared him as fit to make statement.

¶42

The prosecution examined the investigator Sanjay Kumar, Inspector as PW 8. He testified that on 25.03.2008, he was posted as Inspector/SHO at Police Station Rori. At about 10:00 p.m. he had received a telephone call from village Machhi Patti Rori to the effect that Dera premi and followers of Sikh community had been scuffled with each other and after that, he reached the spot with other police officials. On reaching, he noticed that a car was burning and some household articles were also burning. On 26.03.2008 at about 1:00 a.m. Om Parkash complainant moved an application Ex.PA before him and based on such application, he directed registration of FIR i.e. Ex.PW5/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there were some persons present at the spot but

¶43

�

¶44

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶45

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶46

5

¶47

he could not tell whether among some persons complainant Om Parkash and his son Vinod were also present or not. He stated that he does not remember whether Jassa Singh son of Surjeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh had sustained injuries or not on that day in the alleged scuffle.

¶48

The prosecution examined complainant Om Parkash as PW1. He reiterated the contents of the FIR. He stated that on 25.03.2008, the Naam Charcha was organized by Dera Premis in the house of Dharampal from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He further testified that house of Dharampal was situated near his house. In the Naam Charcha he along with his son Vinod Kumar, his nephew Rohtash Kumar, Jagsir Singh, Bansi Singh, Inderpal and other ladies and gentlemen were present. Around 100 persons were present. He said that they were managing Naam Charcha in a peaceful manner and they had also installed a loudspeaker which was being used. In between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. they heard an announcement from the loudspeaker of Gurudwara that Dera Premis were performing Naam Charcha in the house of Dharampal and all the persons from Sikh community were asked to reach at that place to stop the Naam Charcha. The announcement was repeated for 2-3 times. After that, they themselves stopped Naam Charcha to avoid any untoward incident and after that he along with his son came to his house and closed the doors. After some time, Jasveer Singh, Pala Singh, Kulwant Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Jeet Singh, Deep @ Gely, Pala Mistri, Pritam Singh Malriwala, Tarsem Singh, Mehma Singh, Makhan Singh, Surjeet Singh, Ranjit @ Namm, Sukhpal, Baldev Singh, Maggar Singh, Gurvinder Singh, Bikar Singh, Jassa Singh, Naib Singh, Naurang Singh, Himmat Singh, Kimat Singh, Gurbax @ Fauji, Binder Singh were present in the Court along with Deepa Singh and Gurtej Singh @ Geji arrived. They were armed with swords, dandas, lathis, spears, rods, brickbats and after breaking the gate of their house they entered therein. Accused Makhan Singh and Jasveer Singh were carrying kerosene or petrol in a can. Pritam Singh present in the Court directed the other accused to set on ablaze the Maruti car which was parked in the courtyard. In between, Jasveer Singh sprinkled the kerosene on the car and accused Sita Singh lit it on fire. After that, accused Pritam Singh again directed the other accused that his shop should also be set on fire. After that, Makhan Singh sprinkled the kerosene on his shop and Ranjit Singh alias Namm lit the fire to the shop. After that, Pritam Singh again directed the other accused that the scooter lying in the house be also damaged and on hearing it the accused also damaged the scooter. Because of that fire, a gas cylinder got burst and the fire spread in the entire house. The accused persons had also thrown brickbats and stones at their house. He along with his son and mother managed to confine themselves in a room by closing the door. All the accused challenged to all the Dera Premis that if a Naam Charcha is organized again, then they would all be

¶49

�

¶50

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶51

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶52

6

¶53

killed. In cross-examination, the complainant stated that all the accused are followers of Gurudwara. He was confronted with the improvements made in the FIR and he either expressed ignorance or denied the same.

¶54

The prosecution examined Gurbaksh Singh @ Nikka Singh as PW2, who stated that on 25.03.2008 there was a Jagran in the temple. At around 9:00 p.m. there was an announcement made from the loudspeaker of Gurudwara that a Naam Charcha was going on in the house of Dharampal. They also announced all sikh gentlemen to reach there and not to allow Naam Charcha. He stated that his brother Jagsir Singh is Bhangi Dass (Group Leader) of Dera Sacha Sauda. His brother had also obtained naam by the Dera. After that, when he was returning from the temple and he reached near the house of Om Parkash, he noticed that his house had been put on fire and he also named 25 persons present in the court as the accused except Deepa and Gurtej Tailor who were not present in the Court. He also stated that he had become unconscious and remained semi conscious for 4-5 days because of the injuries received by him.

¶55

The prosecution examined Vinod Kumar as PW3, who testified that he was also participant of Naam Charcha and he reiterated whatever was stated by PW1 complainant Om Parkash. In his cross-examination, he was also confronted with his previous statement regarding the improvements and he could not explain them and feigned ignorance. He also could not explain the window in the site plan i.e. the window from where they were watching the assailants and the accused causing damage to their property.

¶56

The prosecution examined PW 4 ESI Rajmal, who admitted in his crossexamination that two persons namely Jassa Singh and Amarjit Singh were also injured in this case and they are accused in this case.

¶57

Based on this evidence, the trial Court did not find the evidence convincing and acquitted the accused.

¶58

Without even discussing the reasons given by the trial Court, the following reasons are sufficient to uphold the acquittal.

¶59

It has come in evidence that Jassa Singh and Amarjit Singh had received injuries in the same occurrence but the prosecution failed to explain such injuries caused to these two accused. The failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries point out that the assault had taken place even by the complainant party regarding the fact that it was the accused who were the aggressors because the incident had taken place at the house of the complainant party. It cannot be said with certainty that the injuries which were received �

¶60

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶61

CRM-A-1089-MA-2015

¶62

7

¶63

on Amarjit Singh and Jassa Singh was caused near the house of the complainant or at some other place. Needless to say that it was for the prosecution to have explained such injuries which they failed to do so.

¶64

The other contradiction in the prosecution’s case is about the source of light and the manner in which they had witnessed the accused persons causing damage. It is the case of the prosecution and the complainant that these people had come after announcement was made in Gurudwara at 9:00 p.m. Needless to say that in the villages at 9:00 p.m. it would be dark. Regarding the statement of complainant that he noticed from the window because of the lights which were there. There is a contradiction in the statement of Vinod Kumar about the presence of window itself from where they had seen the occurrence. Even if, there was a window it cannot be said that in which source of light they were able to witness the occurrence.

¶65

Undoubtedly, a mob had attacked the congregation of Dera Sacha Sauda Premi and such attack has to be deprecated but who were such persons had to be established beyond any reasonable doubts which the prosecution failed to do so.

¶66

Given above, there is nothing in this leave to appeal based on which this Court should grant the leave and admit the matter. Upon the perusal of impugned judgment, it suffers from no infirmity or perversity and such a view was always possible to have been taken by the trial Court.

¶67

�� The present leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶68

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 27.04.2026 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶69

�

¶70

JYOTI 2026.04.27 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

State of Haryana v. Jasvir Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Jasvir Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasbir Singh Alias Shera Vs National Investigation Agency

Sukhbir Singh Alias Rajan Vs State of Punjab

Charanjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dipender Partap Singh @ Dipen Rana Vs National Investigation Agency

Avtar Singh Alias Tari Vs State of Punjab

Basant Vs State of Haryana and Others