Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 2 June, 2022
CRR No. 2908 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No. 2908 of 2014 (O&M)
Reserved on : 30.5.2022
Date of Decision: 02.6.2022
Lakhwinder Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The accused-convicts became charged for offences punishable,
under, Sections 452, 326, 323, 427, 34 IPC. In respect of the afore drawn
charges, against the accused-convicts, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Batala, through an verdict made on 2.11.2011, rather convicted the
accused/convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on
2.11.2011, he proceeded to sentence the accused-convicts in the hereinafter
extracted manner.
Convict Kuldip Singh
Under Section 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
1 of 12
Under Section 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 427 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Convict Manjit Singh
Under Section 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 323/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 427 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Convict Lakhwinder Singh
Under Section 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
2 of 12
Under Section 323/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 427 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Convict Gurprit Singh
Under Section 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 427 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of
payment of fine, convict is further
ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days.
2. The accused-convicts became aggrieved from the above drawn
verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences (supra), as
became imposed upon them, by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned,
and, preferred thereagainst Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2011, before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, upon Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2011, made a
verdict on 22.8.2014, wherethrough he affirmed the verdict (supra) of
conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences (supra), as became
imposed upon the convicts, by the learned trial Magistrate concerned.
3. The convicts becoming aggrieved from the concurrently made
3 of 12
verdicts of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences (supra), as
became imposed, upon them, by both the learned Courts below, made a
challenge to the above, through theirs instituting the instant criminal
revision petition, before this Court.
4. The genesis of the prosecution case become encapsulated, in
the FIR, to which Ex. PW4/B is assigned, contents whereof are ad verbatim
reproduced hereinafter.
"Statement of Parampreet Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh by caste
Jatt resident of Fattupur, age about 27/28 years. It is stated
that I am a resident of above mentioned address. I do
agricultural work. On 13.6.2004, I along with Gursharan
Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh son of my uncle (Mama), who had
come to meet us from Village Kala Afghana went to haveli for
irrigating rice crop. After irrigating crop at about 1.00 P.M, I
along with Gursharan Singh son of my uncle (Mama) slept at
the roof of the haveli. When we fall asleep we heard hue and
cry towards main gate on eastern side. We found that in the
light of bulb Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa s/o Chanan Singh by
caste Jatt resident of Dehar equipped with bamboo stick,
Manjeet Singh @ Meeta s/o Chanan Singh equipped with
sickle, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi s/o Shingara Singh resident of
Kalanaur equipped with bamboo stick, Lakhwinder Singh @
Lakha s/o Chanan Singh by caste Jatt resident of Dehar empty
handed broke down the gate and entered inside. Lakhwinder
Singh raised lalkara when I was getting up from the cot by
saying there in "he is Parampreet, catch hold of him and kill
him." When I was getting up from the cot, Manjeet Singh @
Meeta broke down the glass of the door and gave blow of
sickle which hit my right leg. I got up in order to defend
myself. When I get up Kuldeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh
continuously gave blow of their bamboo stick which hit on my
left and right shoulder. On hearing rola of me and my brother
Gursharan Singh the accused ran away from the spot together
4 of 12
with their weapons. While running from the spot they cut
down the main iron gate and water pipe. The respectable
persons tried to get affected compromise which could not
happen.. High handedness has been committed with me, legal
action may be taken. The reason for nursing grudge is that an
old land dispute is going on since 1978."
5. The penal occurrence happened at the site plan, to which
Ex. PW-4/C is assigned. The star prosecution witnesses, who stepped into
the witness box, to prove the genesis of the prosecution case, are PW-2, and,
PW-3.
6. PW-2 Parampreet Singh is the injured-victim. In his
examination-in-chief, he narrates that on the relevant date, and, time, when
he along with his brother Gursharan Singh (PW-3), were asleep on separate
cots, kept outside their house, then he noticed, that Kuldip Singh @ Keepa
son of Chanan Singh was armed with a bamboo stick, Manjit Singh son of
Chanan Singh was armed with a sickle, Gurpreet Singh son of Shingara
Singh resident of Kalanaur was armed with a bamboo stick, and,
Lakhwinder Singh son of Chanan Singh, was empty handed. He further
testifies in his examination-in-chief, that on his rising from his cot,
Lakhwinder Singh raising a lalkara to nab him, and, to kill him.
Subsequently, he narrates in his examination-in-chief, that Manjit Singh,
struck a datar blow on his right leg, whereas, co-convict Kuldip Singh, and,
Gurpreet Singh, struck bamboo stick blows, on the right, and, left side of his
shoulder. Moreover, he also echoes in his examination-in-chief, that after
the accused fleeing from the crime site, they struck the main gate with a
datar, and, took to cut the water pipes. The reason, which he assigns for an
assault, being made upon his person, by the convicts, is grooved in the
factum, that they were nursing a grievance against him on account of a
5 of 12
demarcation dispute occurring amongst him, and, the convicts.
7. Likewise, PW-3 Gursharan Singh supports the above
testifications, occurring in the examination-in-chief of injured-victim
Parampreet Singh. However for the reasons, to be assigned, hereinafter,
even if the depositions of Parampreet Singh, and, Gursharan Singh, are not
ridden with any rife inter se contradictions, and, nor when their respectively
made testifications, are ridden with any taint of any gross embellishments or
improvements, from their respectively made previous statements in writing.
However, yet this Court does not assign any credence to their respective
testifications.
8. The reason for making the above conclusion, stems from the
factum, that though both Parampreet Singh, and, Gursharan Singh were
admittedly lying on separate cots, at the relevant site, but no injuries became
entailed on the person of Gursharan Singh, rather injuries became entailed
solitarily on the person of Parampreet Singh. The above factum itself is not
insignificant, but rather is enigmatic, as it ultimately makes this Court, to
derive a conclusion, that obviously Gursharan Singh, was neither available
at the crime site, nor he could become an ocular witness to the occurrence,
and, nor he could proceed to mete corroboration to the testification of the
injured-victim one Parampreet Singh.
9. The further consequence thereof, is that the corroboration, if
any, meted by Gursharan Singh, to the testification of PW-2 Parampreet
Singh rather cannot become assigned any credibility. The further sequel
thereof, is that the genesis of the prosecution case, qua both Parampreet
Singh, and, Gursharan Singh being ocular witnesses, to the relevant crime,
becoming concomitantly belied, and/or, Parampreet Singh inventing or
6 of 12
contriving the factum of his becoming assaulted at the crime site, by the
convicts.
10. The further reason for making the above conclusion, becomes
fostered from the trite factum, that though, Parampreet Singh makes a
testification that in sequel to an assault, as, made on his person, rather blood
oozing from the injuries as became entailed, upon his person, and, hence his
clothes becoming smeared with blood stains. However, he did not hand
over his blood stained clothes to the investigating officer concerned. The
omission on the part of Parampreet Singh to hand over his blood stained
clothes, to the investigating officer concerned, makes this Court to draw a
conclusion, that the above suppression of a conspicuous incriminatory fact
against the accused, rather working obviously adversely to the prosecution.
The reason being, that if in the assault, as made upon the person of the
victim, by the convicts, some injuries became entailed, upon his person,
and, the oozing therefroms blood rather smearing his clothes, then it became
incumbent, upon the victim-injured, to hand over his blood stained clothes,
to the investigating officer concerned, to ensure that the blood occurring
thereons, becoming matched by the seriologist rather with his blood sample,
as only upon the relevant inter se matchings, being opined to be favourable,
to the prosecution, obviously hence, the factum of the assault, and, the
consequent therewith injuries, may have become unflinchingly proven by
the prosecution. The omission (supra) has caused a fatal blow to the
prosecution case, and, also concomitantly resulted in the testification of the
injured-victim, and/or, Gursharan Singh rather becoming completely belied.
Moreover, since the blood stains as occurring at the crime site, never
became lifted therefroms, by the investigating officer concerned, nor were
7 of 12
photographed. Thereupon too, an added impetus is gathered by above made
inference. Furthermore also from the prosecution not proving the factum of
the main gate being damaged at the instance of the convicts.
11. Though, the MLR, to which Ex. PW-5/A is assigned, as became
drawn by the doctor concerned, was not proven through its author stepping
into the witness box, but PW-5, who was conversant with the signatures of
the author of PW-5/A, tendered it into evidence. However, PW-5/A, is the
carbon copy of the original. Though PW-5 was a person conversant with the
signatures of the author of PW-5/A, given his working under him, and, also
seeing its author making all the writings including his signatures rather on
Ex.PW-5/A. Moreover, though the author of PW-5/A, could not step into
the witness box, as he had expired at the time, when his deposition, was to
be recorded, before the learend trial Judge concerned. Therefore, obviously
PW-5, who, as above stated, was not only conversant with the signatrues of
Dr. Jagdish Chander, but had also seen him making all the writings, and,
also signaturing Ex. PW-5/A but though through PW-5 proof qua valid
authorship of EX. PW-5/A, rather did emanate. However, yet since PW-5 is
not the doctor but only a Pharmasist, and, obviously could not be put to
cross-examination by the defence counsel, in respect of the injuries
occurring on PW-5/A, becoming entailed, upon the person of the victim, in
pursuance to his being struck, either respectively with bamboo stick blows,
and, or with datar blows. Consequently, irrespective of the authorship of
PW-5/A hence becoming proven by PW-5, yet in the face of the author
thereof expiring, on the date when he was to be stepping into the witness
box, has completely defacilitated, the defence from putting suggestions to
PW5 qua the injuries, as detailed, in Ex. PW-5/A, being a sequel of an
8 of 12
assault rather made with the users of above incriminatory weapons of
offence, by the respective convicts, upon, the person of the victim.
Moreover also, the defence has been, for the reasons (supra) rendered
completely disabled to ensure the production in Court, of the weapons of
offence, at the time of examination of PW-5, and, nor obviously could avail
the said opportunity, given the author of PW/5-A being not alive at the
relevant stage, qua the weapons of offence, being produced or being asked
to be produced, nor could put a suggestion to him or to PW-5, whether the
injuries, as carried in Ex. PW-5/A, could be entailed, upon the person of the
victim, in sequel to his being struck thereons, at the respective instances of
the convicts. In consequence, the mere proving of the authorship of Ex.
PW-5/A by PW-5, does not mete the requirement of law, that the injuries
detailed thereins, were a sequel of an assault, being purportedly made by the
convicts, upon, the person of the victim.
12. Be that as it may, the above facilitation, may have been
purveyed to all concerned, through after the provings of the authorship of
Ex. PW5/A, by PW-5, rather the litigant concerned , yet ensuring the
stepping into the witness box of a competent medical practitioner, who
could have either spoken in his examination-in-chief, or in his cross-
examination, with respect to the above fact. However, the prosecution did
not recourse the above, and, consequently, the prosecution has completely
failed to connect the injuries, rather with the assault, as was purportedly
made with the respectively wielded weapons of offence, by the convicts,
upon the person of the victim.
13. Moreover, the investigating officer concerned, has failed to
9 of 12
cause recoveries, at the instance of the convicts concerned, of the
incriminatory weapons of offence, as became, allegedly wielded by them, at
the crime site, and, also with alleged users' whereofs, they caused injuries
on the person of the victim. Though, the investigating officer concerned,
stepped into the witness box as PW-4, and, in his examination-in-chief,
made a deposition, that during the course of his holding to custodial
interrogation, hence each of the accused, they had made a confessional
statement to him, that they had thrown the incriminatory weapons of
offence, in Sakki Naala. However, the above confessional statement, has
not been reduced into writing, nor it has been signatured by the accused, nor
obviously it became adduced into evidence nor was admissible. Even if the
recovery of the incriminatory weapons of offence, was not amenable to
become effected, as they became thrown into Sakki Naala, rather by the
convicts. However, if the confessional statement of the convicts, was to be
assigned any admissibility, thereupon, it was required to be reduced into
writing, and, also each of the convicts, were required to be making their
signatures thereons, whereas, as above stated, neither the confessional
statement of each the accused, became reduced into writing, nor obviously
the accused convicts, made their signatures thereons. Therefore, the
simpliciter echoings in the examination-in-chief, of PW-4, that the accused
had made a confession to him, of their incriminatory participation, in the
petition crime, is deprived any aura of admissibility, nor any credibility can
be assigned thereto. The reason for adding impetus to the above conclusion,
stems from the factum, that though PW-4 testifies in his examination in
chief, that the accused had disclosed, in their respective custodial
10 of 12
interrogations, that they had thrown the incriminatory weapons of offence in
Sakki Naala, but his yet failing to, in the absence of recoveries thereof,
being made by him, rather add against them an offence under Section 201
IPC. The omission of the above adding of an offence under Section 201
IPC, against the accused, does also completely falsify the factum of any
confessional statement, being made by the convicts, to the investigating
officer concerned, during the course of the latter holding each to custodial
interrogation.
14. In consequence, the above omissions do beget an inevitable
conclusion from this Court, that both the learned Courts below have
completely misappraised, and, also have not appraised all the above
exculpatory facts.
15. Therefore, there is merit in the petition, and, is allowed. The
impugned judgments convicting the petitioners, are quashed, and, set aside.
Moreover, obviously also, the order of sentence(s), as made in consequence
thereof, upon the petitioners, is/are also quashed, and, set aside. The
respectively furnished personal, and, surety bonds by each of the accused
shall stand forthwith cancelled, and, discharged. The case property, if any,
be dealt with, in accordance with law, after the expiry of the period of
limitation, for the filing of an appeal. The fine amount, if any, deposited by
the convicts, be refunded to them, in accordance with law. The convicts-
petitioners, if in custody, and, if not required in any other case, be forthwith
set at liberty.
16. Records be sent down forthwith.
11 of 12
17. Since the main petition has been decided, the pending
application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
June 2nd, 2022
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
