Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
324 CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M)
Reserved on:-01.12.2022
Date of Decision: 21.12.2022
Sukhdev Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate
as Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2003 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby,
they were convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34
and Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each
under both the sections alongwith default clauses.
The brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2001, Balbir
Singh son of Bachan Singh, was admitted in an injured condition in
the Civil Hospital and on receipt of the information, ASI Ravi Dutt
obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured
to make a statement and he was declared fit to make the statement. As
per the complainant/injured, Balbir Singh, he went to Amrik Singh
resident of Budho Barkat on 11.06.2001 in the morning and they both
1 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -2-
had gone to the house of Jodh Singh Lamberdar of the same village.
Later Amrik Singh went to his house, but Balbir Singh started towards
his village on his scooter. At about 07.00 a.m., he reached near the
shop of Ashwani Kumar, and in the meantime, Ravel Singh, Sukhdev
and Arjan Singh all appellants/accused were standing there armed
with dangs (clubs) in their hands. Ravel Singh signalled Balbir Singh
to stop and on this Balbir Singh asked him as to what was the matter.
The accused threatened him to withdraw the case, which was filed by
him, otherwise, he would face dire consequences. Sukhdev Singh
accused exhorted his companions to catch hold of Balbir Singh and
stated that he should not be allowed to go unharmed. Arjan Singh
gave a blow with dang on the back of his right shoulder and one more
blow on his right elbow. Ravel Singh accused, inflicted a dang blow
on his right foot; second blow a little above his right ankle and third
blow on his right foot. Ravel Singh stated in a loud voice that Ajit
Singh had directed the accused to make Balbir Singh physically
crippled and Sukhdev Singh inflicted a dang blow on the back of the
right leg and second blow on the back of the left leg. He also inflicted
third injury with the dang on his right arm. Later Arjan Singh and
Ravel Singh caught hold of Balbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh removed
the golden Karra from his wrist weighing about 3 grams and Ravel
Singh asked that golden ring of Balbir Singh and cash amount from
his pocket be also removed. On this Sukhdev Singh removed the ring
2 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -3-
from the finger of the right hand and also took away a cash amount of
Rs. 5000/- from his pocket. They also stated that they would utilize
the looted property in a case, which Balbir Singh had filed against
them. As per the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by
Kashmir Singh and Rajwant Singh. After this, the accused fled from
the spot with their respective weapons. Kashmir Singh arranged a
vehicle and shifted the complainant to the hospital. During the course
of the investigation, the injuries on the person of Balbir Singh were
declared dangerous to life on 18.06.2001 and ultimately Balbir Singh
died, while under treatment, on 23.06.2001. In pursuance to the
disclosure statement suffered by Sukhdev Singh accused, the recovery
of the golden Karra of Balbir Singh was effected vide memo Ex.BS,
whereas the golden ring was recovered from Arjan Singh, on the basis
of the disclosure statement suffered by him. Apart from that, the
postmortem on the dead body of Balbir Singh complainant was also
got conducted and the doctor gave the opinion that cause of death in
this case was due to septicemic shock as a result of multiple injuries,
which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
After completion of the investigation, final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., was presented against the present appellants as
well as Ajit Singh. It also requires mention that Ajit Singh was later
on acquitted by the learned trial Court.
3 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -4-
The copies of the challan were supplied to the learned
counsel for the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions.
After finding a prima facie case against the present
appellants, the learned trial Court ordered framing of charge under
Section 120-B IPC against all the accused and present three appellants
were charged under Section 304/397 IPC also.
In support of the charge, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses.
Doctor Emmy Grewal was examined as PW1, who had
sent the intimation regarding the death of Balbir Singh on 23.06.2001.
Dr. Ashok Raswant, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, was
examined as PW2. He alongwith Dr. U.S. Sud, had conducted the
postmortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Singh on
24.06.2001. They noticed the following injures on the dead body:-
1. Healed abrasion 3/4" x 3/4" in front and left side
of chest.
2. Healed abrasion ½ X ½" on the back of left elbow.
3. Stitched wound 3" long on the lower and back left
arm.
4. Septic wound 17 ½ X 4" on the posterior lateral
aspect of right leg. Skin subcutaneous tissue was absent.
Muscle and bones were exposed with profuse puss
coming out. There was fracture of right fibula.
5. Healed abrasion ½" X ½" on the posterior aspect
of right elbow.
4 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -5-
On exploration of the body, both the lungs were found to
be pale and the puss was oozing out. As per their opinion, the cause of
death in the present case was due to septicemic shock, as a result of
multiple injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He
proved on record the copy of the postmortem report as Ex.PB and
pictorial diagram as Ex. PB/1. As per his opinion, injury No. 4 was
sufficient to cause death individually and it could be without
septicemia. There was a compound fracture underlying injury No. 4.
Further, Dr. Cherian T. Sanjiv, Nephrologist was examined as PW3,
who proved on record the bed head ticket of Balbir Singh, since
deceased. As per him, the patient was suffering from acute renal
failure on his investigation and the copy of the bed head ticket is
Ex.PC. The cause of renal failure was due to multiple injuries on the
person of the patient and he had developed septicemia on account of
injuries. Consequently, the main cause of death in this case was
septicemia with shock which was due to multiple injuries. The
prosecution had also examined Dr. N.K. Singh, Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Dasuya, as PW4, who had found the following injuries on
the person of the deceased on 11.06.2001:-
1. Reddish bruise on the back of the chest 10 Cm x 3
Cm on right side of chest middle part obliquely
present. Advised x-ray.
5 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -6-
2. Abrasion 2 in number 1 Cm & 1 Cm and ½ Cm X
½ Cm on right elbow posterior aspect surrounded
by diffuse swelling over an area of 3 Cm X 2 Cm
with oozing of blood.
3. Abrasion on the right foot 3 Cm X 2 Cm, 5 CM
distal of ankle joint on anterior aspect of foot
surrounded by diffuse swelling. Advised X-ray.
4. Abrasion 5 Cm X 2.05 Cm on lateral aspect of
lower end of right leg 3 Cm above and front of
lateral melleolus surrounded by diffuse swelling.
Advised X-ray.
5. Abrasion on lateral aspect of foot 2 in number of
size 3 Cm X 0.05 Cm and 1.5 Cm X 0.5 Cm 2.05
Cm apart. Advised X- ray.
6. Reddish contusion on right leg 6 Cm X 2 Cm
horizontally placed on posterior aspect in middle
1/3rd part surrounded by diffuse swelling. Advised
X-ray.
7. Diffuse swelling present on lower part of left leg.
Advised X- ray.
8. Diffuse swelling present on middle 1/3rd part of
right forearm. Advised X-ray.
6 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -7-
He proved on record the copy of the MLR Ex.PE and
after obtaining the fitness certificate from him, the police had
recorded the statement of the injured. Kashmir Singh was examined
as PW5, who was the eye witness of the occurrence. He supported the
story of the prosecution, as narrated by the complainant in his
statement initially. Similarly, PW6 Rajwant Singh was also an eye
witness, who supported the case of the prosecution in all material
particulars. PW7 Daljit Singh was examined by the prosecution to
prove the conspiracy of the appellants with Ajit Singh, co-accused.
The prosecution further examined PW8 Ajit Kumar, who prepared
one golden Karra and one gold ring for Balbir Singh (since deceased)
and he had produced the receipts Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in this regard.
Naval Kishore Draftsman PW9 proved on record the site plan Ex.PG,
whereas Simarajit Kaur widow of Balbir Singh (since deceased) was
examined as PW10. She also supported the case of the prosecution
with regard to the receipts Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The prosecution
examined ASI Ravi Dutt as PW11, who conducted the initial
investigation in the present case. He obtained the doctor's opinion
with regard to the fitness of the injured and recorded the statement
initially. He also sent ruka for registration of the case and the formal
FIR Ex.PK/2 was recorded. He also arrested the accused, recorded the
statements of various prosecution witnesses and supported the case of
the prosecution relating to the present case. Sub Inspector Jastinder
7 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -8-
Singh was examined as PW12, who had taken over the investigation
on 27.06.2001. He arrested the accused and made recoveries of
various incriminating substance from all the accused. Amrik Singh,
Member of the Gram Panchayat, resident of village Budho Barkat
was examined as PW13. He had identified the dead body of Balbir
Singh and in his presence, various recoveries were made from all the
accused and they were again arrested after the death of Balbir Singh
due to the injuries.
After the closure of the evidence, the statements of all the
accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they pleaded
their false implication. It was stated by them that they had been
falsely implicated in the instant case at the behest of Kashmir Singh
and Rajwant Singh. The statement of Balbir Singh was prepared by
ASI Ravi Dutt in consultation with Rajwant Singh and Kashmir
Singh. ASI Ravi Dutt did not record the statement of Balbir Singh nor
he got the statement of Balbir Singh injured recorded from the
Magistrate in spite of the specific direction of the SHO.
In support of their case, the appellants had also examined
Mohan Singh as DW1. He was the Secretary of Passi Bet Cooperative
Agricultural Service Society Limited, Safdarpur. He stated that their
society deals with the sales and purchase of the fertilizer and the
fertilizers are sold only to the members and not to any other private
person. Daljit Singh son of Puran Singh was a non agriculture
8 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -9-
member and he could not have purchased the fertilizer under the
Rules. In June 2001, Daljit Singh never purchased fertilizers from
their society. After examining one witness, the defence closed its
evidence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the trial Court record with their able assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued
that while convicting the accused, learned trial Court has wrongly
placed reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. The
deceased was admitted in the hospital for more than 10 days, yet, the
statement was not recorded before the Magistrate. Still further, the
Investigating Agency, during the entire period when the deceased was
admitted in the hospital, did not make any efforts to get the statement
recorded before the Magistrate and no reliance can be placed on such
a dying declaration.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submitted that the trial Court has correctly treated the statement of the
deceased to be dying declaration and there is no requirement of law
that the dying declaration should be recorded before a Magistrate.
Further, even the injured/complainant had no reason to falsely involve
the appellants and to screen the real culprits, he had given a true
account of the entire occurrence in his statement made to the police.
9 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -10-
I find no force in the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants. The learned trial Court has rightly held that
the statement Ex.PK of Balbir Singh, injured/complainant recorded by
ASI Ravi Dutt is to be given full weightage as a dying declaration and
it contains full and complete particulars of the offence. Even the trial
Court had rightly held that the statement had been promptly recorded
by ASI Ravi Dutt and it could not be held that the statement was made
after due deliberations. I have also gone through the record in this
regard and the trial Court has recorded valid reasons for the
acceptance of the statement made by Balbir Singh
injured/complainant (since deceased). Balbir Singh had described
the role of each of the appellants in the said statement and the learned
trial Court had correctly placed reliance on the same.
Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the
statement of PW5 Kashmir Singh and PW6 Rajwant Singh by
alleging that they were inimical towards the accused/appellants and
had a reason to falsely involve them in a criminal case. Kashmir
Singh PW5 had admitted that he had appeared as a witness in a case
registered against Ajit Singh accused for the offences under Sections
354 and 379 IPC. He had appeared as a witness against the accused in
5/6 cases. Still further, Rajwant Singh PW6 admitted that a case is
pending against him, Balbir Singh and Kashmir Singh for causing a
grievous hurt to Hans Raj, Sarpanch of the village.
10 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -11-
The submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants have been opposed by learned State counsel on the ground
that both the witnesses were natural witnesses and had been
searchingly cross-examined but nothing material could be elicited
from the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the
arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants are untenable. I
have gone through the testimonies of both the witnesses, i.e. PW5
Kashmir Singh and PW6 Rajwant Singh and both the said witnesses
had given a truthful account of the entire occurrence and their
testimonies inspire confidence. Even, during the cross-examination of
these two witnesses, it is apparent that there are no grounds to
disbelieve their testimonies. Still further, the presence of Kashmir
Singh has also been recorded in the hospital record, which proves that
he had witnessed the occurrence.
The learned trial Court had rightly regarded the statement
made by Balbir Singh, since deceased, as a dying declaration. The
ocular version was duly corroborated by the statement of PW2
Dr. Ashok Rajwant, who conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of Balbir Singh. He clearly stated that cause of death in
this case was septicemic shock, as a result of multiple injuries, which
was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the
injuries were anti-mortem in nature. As per him, injury No. 4 was
11 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -12-
sufficient to cause death individually and it could be without
septicemic shock. There was a compound fracture underlying injury
No. 4. Apart from that, his statement is further corroborated by PW4
Dr. N.K. Singh, who proved on record the MLR Ex.PE of the injured
Balbir Singh, who died later on. Still further, the prosecution
examined PW3 Dr. Cherian T. Sanjiv, Nephrologist, who had treated
Balbir Singh and stated that the cause of renal failure was due to
multiple injuries on the person of the patient. As per him, the main
cause of death in this case was septicemic shock, which was due to
multiple injuries. Apart from that, the prosecution examined PW11
ASI Ravi Dutt, who had conducted the initial investigation and his
testimony is duly corroborated by PW12 Sub Inspector Jaswant
Singh, who had taken over the investigation on 27.06.2001. Both the
said witnesses have deposed the facts regarding the arrest and
recoveries from the present appellants. Thus, the statements of the eye
witnesses were duly corroborated by medical evidence as well as by
the Investigating Officer and the learned trial Court has rightly placed
reliance on the same and the impugned judgment is liable to he
upheld.
Apart from that, during the course of investigation,
Sukhdev Singh appellant suffered a disclosure statement on
28.06.2001, in pursuance of which, the recovery of golden Karra
belonging to Balbir Singh was effected vide memo Ex.PS and on
12 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -13-
similar lines, a golden ring on which letters 'BS' were engraved was
effected from Arjan Singh, appellant, on the basis of disclosure
statement made by them and consequently, the learned trial Court had
rightly convicted the appellants under Section 397 IPC.
As per the custody certificates, which are already on the
record, Sukhdev Singh appellant No. 1 had undergone three years,
eight months and six days (including remissions); Ravel Singh
appellant No. 2 had undergone three years, eight months and sixteen
days (including remissions) whereas Arjan Singh appellant No. 3 had
undergone three years, eight months and six days (including
remissions). Even further the custody certificates show that no
criminal case was registered against the present appellants and they
have never indulged in any criminal activity. Even, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed on the present appellants was suspended by
this Court on 09.02.2004 and in the last more than 18 years, they have
never misused the said concession granted to them by this Court.
Learned State counsel also could not dispute these facts. Apart from
that, the appellants were agriculturist and no purpose will be served
by sending the appellants behind the bars once again after a period of
18 years.
This Court also placed reliance on a judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as Rajinder Singh
@ Lala and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(4) Law Herald
13 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -14-
3121 and in that case also conviction was under Section 304 IPC and
appellant therein had undergone one year, eight months and five days
of actual custody out of total sentence of four years and a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court was pleased to reduce the sentence to the one
already undergone.
Reliance can also be placed on a judgment dated
07.01.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CRA S-2478-SB-2018 titled as Jaipal Vs. State of U.T.,
Chandigarh, whereby the sentence was reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant.
Consequently, it is apparent that the incident pertains to
June 2001 and the appellants are facing the agony of trial/appeal since
last more than 21 years. Even, the sentence imposed on the present
appellants was suspended by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2004
and in the last more than 18 years, they did not misuse the said
concession and are not involved in any other criminal case. The
appellants are sole bread earners of their families and ends of justice
would be suitably met if their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
the one already undergone by them.
However, amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 1 lac each,
i.e. total Rs. 3 lacs, which shall be deposited by the appellants with
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, within a period of three
months from today, failing which, the appellants shall undergo further
14 of 15
CRA-S-1828-SB-2003 (O&M) -15-
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, is directed to issue notices to the legal
representatives of Balbir Singh, since deceased, and the amount of
compensation shall be paid to them as per law.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment of
conviction is ordered to be upheld, whereas the order of sentence is
liable to be modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal
stands disposed of accordingly.
All pending applications, if any, are disposed of,
accordingly.
The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.
Records of the Court below be sent back.
In the end, I record my appreciation for Mr. Rahul Vats,
learned Amicus Curiae, who had rendered able assistance to this
Court.
21.12.2022 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
15 of 15
