Punjab-Haryana High Court

Roop Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 14 December, 2022

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                  AT CHANDIGARH
                          322
                                                                              CRA-S-1193-SB-2003
                                                                              Decided on : 14.12.2022

                          Roop Singh and others
                                                                                       . . . Appellant(s)
                                                             Versus
                          State of Punjab
                                                                                    . . . Respondent(s)

                          CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                          Present:     Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
                                       for the appellants.

                                       Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate
                                       for appellants No.1, 2 & 7.

                                       Mr. AS Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

                                       Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate and
                                       Ms. Archana Vashisht, Advocate
                                       for the complainant.
                                                             ****

                          SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

Present appeal has arisen against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 11.06.2003, passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge

(Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No.52 of 23.02.1996,

arising from FIR No. 153, dated 13.11.1995, under Sections 307, 452, 148,

149 of IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana.

2. All the seven appellants faced trial, and substantially were

sentenced for the offences under Section 307 /149 of IPC, and appellant No.1

- Roop Singh in specific under Section 307 of IPC also. Appellants were

sentenced under the heads of other offences also along with fine amount with

the default clause. Thereafter, all the seven convicts filed present appeal

against the impugned judgment, which is subject matter before this Court.

3. Relying upon the copy of death certificates, learned State JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

counsel has confirmed that appellant No.3 - Bant Singh, and appellant No.4

- Balbir Singh, have expired during the pendency of present appeal, and thus,

states that qua them, appeal stands abated. Thus, this Court is left with the

fate of the appeal qua remaining five appellants before this Court.

FACTS ALLEGED IN FIR

4. FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Smt.

Rajinder Kaur, who appeared as PW-1 on 12.11.95 at about 10:30 PM.

Complainant - Rajinder Kaur along with her husband and sons were present

in their house situated in village Sahnewal Kalan, and were watching

television, after taking their meals. On hearing noise from outside, when

Amarjit Sijngh, husband of the complainant - Rajinder Kaur was trying to

open the door of her house, accused Bant Singh, and Manjit Singh gave push

to the door and dragged the complainant outside the house, and gave beatings

to her. Accused - Roop Singh armed with double barrel gun, Balbir Singh

armed with gandasi, Ramesh armed with dang, Gurpal Singh armed with

sword and Bahadur Singh armed with dang, were standing outside the house

of the complainant near the main door. One tractor was also parked there.

Accused Gurpal Singh while raising lalkara exhorted the other accused for

teaching a lesson to the complainant for purchasing the land from Harchand

Singh. Accused - Roop Singh fired shots from his gun, pellets of which hit

Amarjit Singh on head, right arm and right side of his body. Ajit Pal Singh

(son of the complainant) also received gun shot injuries on his person.

Pellets also hit the door and walls of the house of the complainant. Other

accused while standing there, were abusing the complainant and her sons.

Persons from the complainant party went over the roof of their house and

started throwing brick-bats on the accused persons in their self-defense. On

hearing alarm, Sukhwinder Singh reached on the spot, and in the meantime, JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

all the accused ran away from there on their tractor along with their

respective weapons. Injured Amarjit Singh and Ajit Pal Singh were shifted

to Civil Hospital, Sahnewal, and from there they were referred to Oswal

Cancer Hospital, Ludhiana. Thereupon, after recording statements of

complainant, investigation of the case was conducted and final report was

submitted against the accused persons.

5. Ld. Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 307, 452,

148, 149 of IPC, and thereafter, prosecution examined total 16 witnesses i.e.

complainant - Rajinder Kaur as PW1, injured Amarjit Singh as PW2, Dr.

Sarjiwan Kapila as PW3, HC Kashmira Singh as PW4, C. Prem Lal as PW5,

injured Ajit Pal Singh as PW6, HC Gurpal Singh as PW7, Harvinder Singh

as PW8, Mangal Sain (photographer) as PW8 (again re-numbered

inadvertently), SPO Dalbir Singh as PW9, SPO Gurjit Singh as PW10, Dr.

Aman Preet Singh as PW11, Dr. Inderjit Singla as PW12, Dr. Samir Dogra as

PW13, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary as PW14, ASI Surjit Singh as PW15,

and SI Balbir Singh as PW16.

6. In defense also, total 09 witnesses were produced by the accused

i.e. Gurmeet Singh as DW1, Sarwan Singh as DW2, Baldev Singh as DW3,

Dr. RN Singla as DW4, Surinder Singh as DW5, Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar as

DW6, Motta Singh as DW7, Harminder Pal Singh, SP(D) as DW8, and Roop

Singh as DW9.

7. In the present case, prime accused is Roop Singh, who is said to

have fired with a 12 bore, double barrel gun, and he appeared himself as

witness No.9 (DW9), from where defense taken by the accused persons can

be understood, in totality. Statement of accused Roop Singh as DW9 is

reproduced hereunder:-

"Ajitpal Singh and Harpreet Singh are real sons of JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

Amarjit Singh, Rajinder Kaur is the wife of Amarjit Singh,

Sukhwinder Singh accused is their neighbour. I owned a land

near the house of Amarjit Singh accused and the said land is

measuring about 20 bighas and is in my possession. I had sown

rice crop in that land, but accused Amarjit Singh and his sons

had committed the theft of said crop. For which a criminal case

was registered against them vide FIR No.141, dt. 21-10-95, u/ss

379/447 IPC on 12-11-95 at about 10 P.M. Bant Singh my

father, myself and my brother Manjit Singh were present on the

electric motor in our field. We were irrigating a bursen crop in

our field. Accused Amarjit Singh armed with double barrel gun

and accused Ajit Pal armed with soti. Harpreet Singh armed

iron rod and accused Rajinder Kaur armed with small kirpan

and accused Sukhwinder Singh came at our electric motor.

Accused Amarjit Singh raised lalkara that Bant Singh should be

taught a lesson for reporting theft case to the police. Accused

Ajitpal Singh then gave soti blow, which hit on my right eye.

Accused Sukhwinder Singh gave fist blow on my face. My father

Bant Singh tried to rescue me. Accused Ajit Pal Singh gave soti

blow on the head of Bant Singh. My father and accused

Rajinder Kaur gave small kirpan blow on right shoulder of my

father Bant Singh. Accused Harpeet Singh gave iron rod blow

on his right arm, as a result of which bone of arm of Bant Singh

was broken. My father fell down on the ground and Manjit

Singh tried to intervene, but accused Ajit Pal Singh gave soti

blow on right leg and left leg of Manjit Singh. Then accused

Amarjit Singh fired two shots at Manjit Singh, which he received JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

on his head. He fell down on the ground. I also fired 2-3 shots

with my licenced gun towards the accused in my self defence on

that all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective

weapons. There was electric light on the spot and Gurjit Singh

reached on the spot on his tractor and he brought my father

Bant Singh, my brother Manjit Singh and myself in Civil

Hospital, Sahnewal. We were medically examined and referred

to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, after giving first aid. Police of P.S.

Sahnewal reached Civil Hospital, Sahnewal. I was arrested by

the police from Civil Hospital, Sahnewal and was taken to P.S.

Sahnewal and made to sit over there. My father and my brother

were sent to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The police did not record

my statement nor of my father Bant Singh, and no action was

taken against the above mentioned accused."

Apart him, in the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused

Manjit Singh and Bant Singh followed the defense taken by accused Roop

Singh, whereas, accused Balbir Singh, Gurpal Singh, Bahadur Singh, and

Ramesh, took specific stand that they were innocent and were not present on

the spot.

8. In other words, as per defense version, accused Balbir Singh,

Ramesh, Gurpal Singh and Bahadur Singh, have pleaded themselves to be

innocent, and being not present on the spot of incident. As far as other three

acused namely Bant Singh, Manjit Singh and Roop Singh, are concerned,

they have pleaded to have acted in their self-defense, as they had also

suffered injuries.

In support of proving injuries, Dr. RN Singla, retired Civil

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 Surgeon, appeared as DW4, and deposed that "On 14.11.95, I conducted the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

x-ray examination of Bant Singh, aged 65 years old son of Baldev Singh r/o

Sahnewal, Distt. Ludhiana, while I was working as SMO Civil Hospital,

Ludhiana, and found as under:-

x-ray skull was N.A.D. and x-ray of right upper arm showed that there was

fracture of shaft of humerous. Patient was referred to me by Dr. Kulwant

Singh, who was then posted as EMO in the Civil Hospital vide his MLR No.

KS/592/95 dated 13.11.1995. I have brought the original record of Bant

Singh, the photocopy of x-ray report is [Ex.DW4/A (objected to)]. On the

same day I also conducted the x-ray examination of Manjit Singh, aged 26 y

ears son of Bant Singh, r/o Sahnewal Distt. Ludhiana. He was also referred

by Dr. Kulwant Singh vide MLR No. 593/95 and found as follows. The x-ray

skull showed that there was multiple foreign body simulating pellets present

in the left perieto occipital region. No bony injury was deducted. The

photocopy of x-ray report is Ex.DW4/B. I have brought the original in the

Court today. Dr. Kulwant Singh was working under me as EMO during

those days, when I was SMO Incharge Civil Hospitall, Ludhiana. I used to

see him writing and signing. Hence, I identify his writing and signatures on

medico legal reports.

Manjit Singh and Bant Singh, photo copy of medico legal report

of Manjit Singh is Ex.DW4/C (objected to)and that of Bant Singh is

Ex.DW4/D (objected to) vide MLR of Manjit Sijngh on receipt of my x-ray

report, Dr. Kulwant Singh has given his opinion with regard to the nature of

injuries as fire arm injury were caused on the person of Manjit Singh.

These injuries No.1 and 5 on the skull. On receipt of x-ray

report of Bant Singh injury on his person were declared as grievous. That

injury no.3 vide his report Dr. Kulwant is on long leave and has gone

abroad. The present address of said doctor is not available. JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

9. For proving injury of Roop Singh, Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar,

MO Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, appeared as DW6 and deposed as under:-

"On 15-11-1995 at 4-10 P.M. while I was posted at Civil

Hospital, Ludhiana, as Emergency Medical Officer. I conducted

medico-legal examination of Roop Singh s/o Bant Singh, aged

about 36 y ears, r/o Sahnewal. He was brought to me by HC

Harbhajan Singh No.2403 of P.S. Sahnewal, Ludhinaa.

The patient was conscious and oriented and his vital signs

were normal and following injuries were noted on his person:-

1) Bluish black contusion 2.1/2" x 1.1/2" just below

right eye.

                                           2)    Brownish abrasion 1" x ¾" on left zygoma.

                                           3)    Wound 1" x 1/3" bone deep. Placed on the outer

                                                 part of right eye=blow on temple.       Margins of

                                                 wound were swollen and inflmed with slight

                                                 scabbing and X-Ray was advised.

                                           4)    Complained of pain on both the pelvic joints with

alleged history of assault. No mark of any external

injury was present and the patient complained of

pain during walking and squatting and X-Ray was

advised.

Injuries No.3 and 4 were subjected to X-Ray, while rest

were declared as simple. Probable duration of injuries for Nos.1

to 3 was about 48 to 72 hours and No.4 it was uncertain. The

kind of weapon used for injuries No.1 and 2 was blunt and was

uncertain for Nos. 3 and 4. I have brought the original medico

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 legal examination report, which is Ex.DW6/A/1. It is in my hand I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

and it bears my signatures. Ex.DW6/A/1is pictorial diagram

showing receipt of injuries.

xxxxxxxxx by Sh. K.S. Grewal, Adv. :-

I have mentioned the time between occurrence and

injuries of its examination for injuries No.1 and 2. Abrasion can

be caused by rubbing against a rough surface or a hard object.

The type of wound in injury No.3 w2as uncertain. i.e. why the

kind of wound is not mentioned in injury No.3. The patient was

discharged after examination. I do not know whether the patient

got himself x-rayed for the advised injuries. There was no mark

of injury and there was no swelling on injury No.4. For injury

No.3, the kind of weapon used was not disclosed to me by

injured at the time of his examination. How can I say the kind of

weapon. It is still uncertain."

10. Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that criminal

complaint filed by accused Bant Singh against the complainant party was

dismissed, and thereafter, appeal against the dismissal of complaint was also

dismissed on some technical aspect, without dealing with the facts of the

case.

11. That now coming back to the case of the prosecution for proving

of the injuries, prosecution mainly relies upon the statement of injured -

Amarjit Singh (PW2), injured - Ajit Pal Singh (PW6), complainant -

Rajinder Kaur (PW1), Dr. Sarjiwan Kapila (PW3) who examined the injured

Ajit Pal Singh, and Dr. Aman preet Singh (PW11), who examined the injured

Amarjit Singh.

Deposition of the complainant and injured witnesses are more of

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 reiteration of the FIR version. However, to understand the case put-forth by I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

the prosecution, from the deposition of the injured witnesses, statement of

PW6 - Ajit Pal Singh, is reproduced hereunder:-

"I know all the accused now present in Court. They

belong to my village except accused Bahadur Singh and accused

Ramesh Kumar. Bahadur Singh accused is resident of

Ludhiana. Ramewsh Kumar was servant of the accused. On

12.11.1995, at about 10.30 P.M. we were watching our TV after

taking the meals with my father Amarjit Singh, my mother

Rajinder Kaur, my brother Harpret Singh, in our house. We

heard a noise from out side and also heard abuse. When my

father tried to open the door of our house but accused Bant

Singh and Manjit Singh gave a push to the door from inside the

house and dragged my father from inside the house. Then they

started beating my father. My father raised a roula 'Mar ditta

Mar ditta'. On hearing the Roula I alongwith my mother, my

brother Harpreet Singh came out from the house. On seeing us

Manjit Singh and Bant Singh left my father. We saw the

occurrence in the electric light. Roop Singh armed with a DBBL

gun, Gurpal Singh wasw armed with a kirpan, Balbir Singh son

of Hari Singh was armed with a Gandasi, Bahadur Singh was

armed with a Dang and accused Ramesh Kumar was also armed

with a Dang and accused Ramesh Kumar was also armed with a

Dang and some other identified persons whose name I do not

know but I can identify them. All were standing near the

International truck. Accused Gurpal Singh raised a lalkara

exhorted his co-accused Roop Singh that he should taught a

lesson for taking his land from Harchand Singh and he should JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 10 -

fire gun-shot from his gun. Accused Roop Singh then fired a

shot towards us in order to kill us. He fired two gun-shots. My

father Amarjit Singh received first fire on his right arm and right

side of his body and head. I also pallet injury on my left arm.

The pellets were also hit on the door of our house and walls.

The other accused were also abusing. My father Amarjit Singh

after receiving injuries became semi-conscious and he came to

our house. I along with my brother Harpreet Singh and my

mother Rajinder Kaur went up stair of the roof of our house and

raised roula and started throwing brick-bets. Sukhvinder Singh

also witnessed the occurrence. All the accused fled away with

their respective weapons. First of all I removed my father to

Civil Hospital Sahnewal. Then, we referred to Mohan Dai

Hospital, Ludhiana. My father was medically examined in

Mohan Dai Hospital, Ludhiana. I was medically examined on

13.11.1995 at Civil Hospital, Sahnewal. The motive behind the

occurrence we had purchased the land measuring 1 K 19 marlas

from Harchand Singh and Nasib Kaur residents of village

Sahnewal. That Harchand Singh is uncle of accused Roop

Singh. There were civil litigation between us and the accused

and the civil court had issued a stay in our favour. My

statement was recorded by the police."

12. From the deposition of the injured prosecution witnesses, it

would be clear that accused Balbir Singh, Ramesh, Gurpal Singh and

Bahadur Singh, though are said to be armed, but have not played any active

role in causing the injuries to any of the victim, except of Gurpal Singh, who

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 allegedly raised lalkara of teaching lesson to the complainant party for I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 11 -

purchasing the land from Harchand Singh.

13. Further, in examination of chief, statement of Dr. Sarjiwan

Kapila as PW3, describing the injuries suffered by injured Ajit Pal Singh, is

reproduced as under:-

"I medically examined Ajitpal Singh son of Amarjit Singh,

aged 23 years old male, Jat Sikh, resident of village Sahnewal,

on 13.11.1995, at about 9.30 P.M. and noted the following

injuries on his person. He was brought by Tejinder Singh.

1) Rounder reddish contusion 1 cm in diameter on

medial surface left elbow.

2) A brasion 1 x ¼ cm on inner surface of Ist phalanx

of right index finger.

3) Rounded reddish contusion 1 cm in diameter in

lenier surface of left foot near the greater toe.

4) Abrasion 1 cm x 1/5 cm in the lower part of middle

of fore-head above the eye-brow.

Nature of injuries: Injury nos.1 and 3 were kept under

observation for X-ray. Injuries No.2 and 4 were simple in nature

caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.1 and 3 were caused by fire

arm. The duration of injuries was within 24 to 36 hours. Ex.PB

is the correct carbon copy of the MLR brought by me today in

Court. It is signed by me and is correct. Ex.PB/1 was the

pictorial diagram showing the seats of injury. I did not receive

any X-ray report for injury no.1 and 3."

Similarly, in examination of chief, deposition of Dr. Amar Preet

Singh as PW-11, proving injuries of victim Amarjit Singh, is reproduced as

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 under:-

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 12 -

"On 13.11.1995, Amarjit Singh son of Madan Singh, aged

50 years, resident of village Sahnewal, brought by Ajit Pal

Singh, was medico legally examined by me at Mohan Dai Oswal

Memorial Hospital. At that time I was working over there as a

Medical Officer (Emergency). I found the following injuries on

his person:-

1. Punctured wound on the right frontol and temporal

reason about 10 to 15 in number.

2. Right elbow 10 to 12 punctured wound on the

lateral aspect of right elbow.

3. Right thigh and pelvis 8 to 10 punctured wound on

the enterio lateral aspect junction of thigh and

pelvis.

Injury nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by one gun-shot.

Nature of injuries, gun shot injuries. Duration of injuries were

fresh as it was on the vital part, i.e. head. It be dangerous to

life. I have brought the office record in respect of the admission

of said Amarjit Singh. Ex.PW11/A is the injury report. It is in

my hand and it bears my signature. I had sent the information

to the police vide Endst. Ex.PW11/B."

14. While addressing arguments, Mr. SPS Sidhu, counsel for the

appellants submitted that involvement of accused Ramesh, Gurpal Singh and

Bahadur Singh, in the said crime is not probable in the absence of any direct

motive. Mr. Sidhu, submits that motive addressed by prosecution is of

purchase of land by the complainant party from Harchand Singh, who is

brother of accused Roop Singh. As per record, accused Ramesh was working

JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 as a servant with the accused party, and accused Bahadur Singh was serving I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 13 -

in a Bank. Accused Gurpal Singh is son of accused Bant Singh, and thus,

being a family member was involved in the case. Therefore, for implicating

him falsely, attribution of raising of lalkara has been given by the

complainant party to him in the case. Otherwise, no active role is attributed

to all three of them in regard to causing of injuries to any of the two injured

from the prosecution side. Therefore, counsel submits that during the course

of investigation of the three accused i.e. Ramesh alleged to be armed with

dang, Gurpal Singh alleged to be armed with sword, and Bahadur Singh

alleged to be armed with dang, were found innocent by the investigating

agency, and were subsequently, summoned by the Court under Section 319

Cr.PC for facing trial along with other challaned accused. Thus, counsel

submits that in the absence of any strong and substantial piece of evidence,

only with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, none of these three can be convicted.

15. Mr. SPS Sidhu, counsel for the appellants, further submits that

named accused Bant Singh and Balbir Singh, have already expired during the

pendency of present appeal, therefore, appeal qua them stands abated. Mr.

Sidhu, while addressing his submissions vehemently submits that only

alleged motive is of purchasing of land measuring 1 Kanal - 19 Marlas by

the complainant party from Harchand Singh, brother of Roop Singh, and said

part of allegation has not been substantiated on record by producing any

documentary evidence, such as, copy of sale-deed or agreement to sell. Mr.

Sidhu, also submits that fields and houses of both the sides are adjoining to

each other, and as per the allegations of the prosecution, even accused had

not entered the house of the complainant, therefore, conviction under Section

452 of IPC is not sustainable. It is further argued that considering the

medical evidence led by the defense in the shape of DW4 - Dr. RN Singla,

and DW6 - Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar, it is well proved that firearm injuries JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 14 -

are suffered by the accused side, which part has been concealed by the

prosecution, and mere non-appearance of Dr. Kulwant Singh, cannot be

taken as a loss to the defense version, because of explanation given by Senior

Doctor of the Civil Hospital, and said part of evidence if is said to be

technically not proved, would not be that helpful/material to the prosecution,

because of creating a big dent/doubt in the prosecution version. Moreover,

prosecution has failed to disprove the statement of the Doctors, proving the

injuries suffered by all three of the accused i.e. Bant Singh, Manjit Singh and

Roop Singh, by creating any element of doubt by way of any mean.

Broadly speaking, Mr. Sidhu, counsel for the appellants, has

addressed his arguments that admittedly Roop Singh, who is a prime

accused, fired with 12 bore double barrel gun in the self-defense, and he

himself has dared to appear as a witness in the witness-box to prove his

innocence. Thus, he prays for clean acquittal in the case.

16. Countering the arguments of the appellants, learned State

counsel, assisted by Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate and Ms. Archana Vashisht,

Advocate, who are appearing for complainants, argues that since happening

of occurrence has already been admitted by the accused, and firing of gun

shots has also been admitted, there is no escape for the accused side to come

out of the allegation of the prosecution, specially when defense version i.e. of

suffering of injuries, is left unproved by the accused on the record of the

case.

17. I have considered the submissions addressed by all the

respective counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record

with their able assistance, and is unable to accept the plea addressed by

counsel for the appellants mainly for accused Manjit Singh and Roop Singh.

Since beginning, it is the case of prosecution that the complainant and her JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 15 -

sons went upstairs and started throwing brick-bats, resulting in some minor

injuries caused to some of the accused. In other words, prosecution had well

disclosed the manner of incident of causing of injuries to the accused party.

Moreover, it would be material to notice that the deposition of Dr. RN Singla

as DW4 regarding observing the presence of "multiple foreign body

simulating pellets present in the left perieto occipital region with no bonny

injury", was required to be proved by producing the original record at least.

Undoubtedly, there is some explanation by defense side, of not being able to

produce Dr. Kulwant Singh, who initially medically examined the injured

accused. But, there is need to get some explanation on record that what was

the substance in the perieto region of accused Manjit Singh factually, and

also that when and how said pellets were tried to be taken out of the person

of the injured. In the absence of any such explanation, injury, if any, having

been suffered by accused Manjit Singh through a firearm cannot be accepted

on the face of it.

18. Thus, in the backdrop of the circumstances, and specific

admission of firing shots with double barrel gun in self-defense, it is

sufficient to hold conviction as ordered by Ld. Trial Court qua appellant

No.1 - Roop Singh and appellant No.2 - Manjit Singh. Therefore, in view of

the submissions addressed by counsel for the parties, and observations

recorded hereinabove, appeal qua appellants No.1 & 2 i.e. Roop Singh &

Manjit Singh, stands dismissed.

However, there being no evidence of playing of active role

against appellants No.5, 6 & 7 (i.e. Ramesh, Gurpal Singh and Bahadur

Singh), and nothing to corroborate the allegations mentioned in the FIR, they

deserve acquittal. Thus, appellant No.5 - Ramesh, Appellant No.6 - Gurpal

Singh and appellant No.7 - Bahadur Singh, are acquitted from the charges JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

                                 CRA-S-1193-SB-2003                                              - 16 -

                          leveled against them.

Appeal qua appellants No.3 & 4 (i.e. Bant Singh & Balbir

Singh) stands abated. However, same would be subject to the terms &

conditions, passed by this Court in IOIN-CRA-S-4686-SB-2018 in CRA-S-

4686-SB-2018, titled as, "Shivji Ram @ Dimple Vs. State of Punjab",

decided on 24.11.2022 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2076392).

ORDER ON SENTENCE:-

19. Now, while deciding the sentence part of accused/appellants

No.1 & 2 (i.e. Roop Singh and Manjit Singh), it is pointed out that the

incident took place in the year 1995, and sending them back inside jail after a

period of about 27 years, may give chance to the reopening of wounds and

revival of bad blood amongst the parties, who otherwise are co-villagers. It

is also submitted by counsel that as per the custody certificates submitted by

learned State counsel, accused/appellant No.1 - Roop Singh, has undergone

total period of actual sentence as 01 year, 01 month and 13 days, and

including remission it is 03 years, 03 months and 20 days.

Accused/appellant No.2 - Manjit Singh, has undergone total

custody period of 02 months and 16 days (including remission). Appellant

No.1 - Roop Singh was released on bail in the year August 2004, whereas,

appellant No.2 - Manjit Singh was released on bail in July, 2003 by this

Court, during pendency of present appeal. However, there is nothing adverse

in their career after being released on bail, except of the incident for which

they are facing prosecution for the last about 27 years.

Thus, sending both of them again to the jail would amount

ignoring the concept of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by asking

them to stay in jail for the remaining sentence, after such a belated stage of

the incident, as final decision of which could not take place because of laxity JAWALA RAM 2022.12.23 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRA-S-1193-SB-2003 - 17 -

of the prosecution or the forums to decide the same.

Thus, the order of sentence dated 11.06.2003 is modified qua

both the accused-appellants No.1 & 2 (i.e. Roop Singh & Manjit Singh), to

the extent that the sentence imposed upon both the appellants is reduced to

the sentence already undergone by them. However, sentence qua fine would

remain intact.

Before parting with the matter, this Court cannot ignore the

nature of injuries suffered by injured/victim - Amarjit Singh, and thus, both

appellants No.1 & 2 (i.e. Roop Singh & Manjit Singh) are ordered to deposit

Rs.50,000/- each (Rs.1,00,000/- in total) as compensation, before the Court

of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate, within a period of 03 months from today, which