Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -1 2024:PHHC:059223
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-219-SB-2004
Date of Reserve:22.03.2024
Date of Decision:30.04.2024
Darshan Singh and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2003, passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, whereby the
respondents No.2 to 5 were convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 307/379/34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of
07 years each for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and to pay
a fine of Rs.1000/- each, along with default stipulation and were sentenced to
undergo RI for a period of 02 years each for an offence punishable under
Section 379/34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, along with default
stipulation, whereby the appellants have preferred the present appeal before
this Court.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, Darshan Singh,
appellant No.1 had expired. Since the learned counsel for the appellants were
not appearing, Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -2 2024:PHHC:059223
to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on receipt of the information
regarding the admission of Paramdeep Singh son of Gurjit Singh, SI Harpal
Singh and other police officials reached CMC, Ludhiana and obtained the
opinion with regard to the fitness of the Paramdeep Singh. Since he was
declared unfit to make the statement, the statement of Gurjit Singh, his father
was recorded. As per Gurjit Singh, complainant, on 07.08.2001 he along with
Baldev Singh son of Nazir Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Bachan Singh were
present at Water Works, Ward No.12 and waiting for their partner Ranjit Singh
son of Gurbachan Singh for taking accounts of their Mini Bus. At that time the
complainant was having his .12 bore single barrel gun with him. In the
meantime, Paramdeep Singh @ Mammu, the son of the complainant came on
his scooter to call him back to the house. At that time, a big mercury bulb was
on in the street and electric tube was also on, on the room of Water Works. At
about 08:00 PM when the complainant along with his son Paramdeep Singh
was to leave for his home on the scooter of his son, Darshan Singh @ Badal son
of Sudagar Singh armed with .12 bore gun with his son Lakhbir Singh came
there on a motorcycle along with his real brother Amarjit Singh @ Tholu with
Jaswant Singh@ Jassa sitting behind him on pillion of different scooter which
was driven by Amarjit Singh. Darshan Singh @ Badal raised lalkara that the
complainant should not be spared and lesson be taught to him for getting a case
registered against them by giving secret information. In the meantime said
Darshan Singh @ Badal fired a shot from his .12 bore gun towards Paramdeep
Singh which hit him on the upper part of his left arm besides his chest near the
armpit. As as result of it, Paramdeep Singh fell down from his scooter. Darshan
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -3 2024:PHHC:059223
Singh and his son Lakhbir Singh started giving slaps and fist blows to the
complainant. Lakhbir Singh snatched the licensed gun of the complainant.
Jaswant Singh @ Jassa picked up a chair lying on the spot and hit the same on
Baldev Singh. As a result of which Baldev Singh sustained injury on his head
and fell down on the ground. Amarjit Singh @ Tholu picked up another chair
and hit the same on the head of Mohinder Singh, who was on Government duty
at that time. He(complainant) raised hue and cry and all the accused escaped
from the place on their scooters. While leaving, the accused persons took away
his .12 bore single barrel gun. In the meantime, a large number of people
collected at the spot. The wound of Paramdeep Singh was bleeding profusely so
he took off his blood stained shirt and tied the same on the wound. The blood
stained shirt was lateron handed over to the police. Master Baldev Singh
admitted the injured persons in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and
Hospital, Faridkot for treatment after arranging vehicle for the purpose from
where his son was referred to CNC Ludhiana.
4. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted
by the police and challan was presented before the Area Magistrate. Since the
offence under Section 307 IPC was triable by the Court of sessions, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Ultimately, the
charge under Sections 307/382/353/34 of IPC was framed against the
appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of
the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Dr.A.K Aggarwal, Assistant
Professor Forensic Medicines, GGS College and Hospital as PW-1, E. Rai
Singh, Medical Record Officer, CMC Ludhiana as PW-2, Gurjit Singh as
PW-3, Paramdeep Singh-PW-4, Jagjit Singh Accountant, Municipal
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -4 2024:PHHC:059223
Committee, Ferozepur as PW-5, Vidya Sagar JR Assistant as PW-6, Parveen
Kumar, Arms Clerk as PW-7, ASI Harpal Singh as PW-8, Dr. Manish Ahuja,
Lec. Dept. of Surgery, CMC Ludhiana as PW-9, ASI Sukhmindir Singh as
PW-10, MHC Satnam Singh as PW-11 and Kishan Lal, Draftsman as PW-12.
5. To elaborate the evidence of the prosecution, further the
prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.A.K Aggarwal, who medico legally
examined Paramdeep Singh, at about 09:45 PM on 07.08.2001 and found the
following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm present on lateral
aspect of left upper arm in upper half. Margins were inverted.
Fresh bleeding was present.
2. Lacerated wound 9 cm x 8 cm present on the medial
aspect left upper arm near Axilla. Margins were everted. Fresh
bleeding was present.
3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm present on left side
of chest, 6 cm above left nipple. Margins were inverted. 3 small
lacerated wounds .75 cm in diameters present near inferior
border of wound. Margins were inverted.
6. He also exhibited the MLR as Ex.P-1 and pictorial diagram
showing the seats of injuries as Ex.P-2. PW-1 Dr.A.K Aggarwal also found
the following injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh:-
1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm present left side of head 7
cm above lateral end of left eye brow. Fresh bleeding and
swelling was present.
7. Injury No.1 was subjected to X-ray report and was result of blunt
weapon. He proved the MLR as Ex.P-3 and pictorial diagram showing the
seats of injuries as Ex.P-4. PW-1 Dr.A.K Aggarwal also examined Baldev
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -5 2024:PHHC:059223
Singh and found the following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm present on the right
side of forehead 3 cm above the right eye brow. Bleeding was
coming out of wound and swelling was present.
2. Lacerated wound 5 cm x .5 cm present on back of
head on left side. It was obliquely placed. Swelling was present.
8. He proved the MLR of Baldev Singh as Ex.PW-5 and pictorial
diagram as Ex. P-6. He declared the injuries suffered by Baldev Singh and
Mohinder Singh as simple.
9. The prosecution further examined PW-9 Dr. Danish Ahuja, who
had admitted Parminder Singh in CMC, Ludhiana and found the following
injuries. Injury No.1 was stated to be grievous, injury No.2 as "dangerous to
life" and injury No.3 as simple and weapon used in causing all the injuries
was stated to be gun. He proved the MLR as Ex.P-21, whereas pictorial
diagram showing the seats of injuries as Ex.P21/A. He also proved the
findings of operation note qua operation performed on Paramdeep Singh by
a team of doctors, in which he was one of the members. The prosecution also
examined Gurjit Singh, complainant as PW-3, who had supported the case of
the prosecution. Apart from that, Paramdeep Singh, injured also corroborated
the statement of PW-3, Gurjeet Singh, complainant. Apart from that, the
prosecution also examined PW-8 ASI, Harpal Singh, who had proved several
documents and had made recoveries during the course of investigation.
PW-10, ASI Sukhmindir Singh was examined to prove the recovery of .12
bore gun belonging to Gurjit Singh, complainant from accused Lakhbir
Singh, pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.P-22. He also proved the
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -6 2024:PHHC:059223
recovery memo as Ex.P-23, whereas the site plan of the place of recovery
was proved as Ex.PW-24.
10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of
the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C and the entire
prosecution evidence was put to the accused. They pleaded their innocence
and false implication. The appellants pleaded that they were not present at the
spot. Accused Darshan Singh further stated that SHO of Police Station Ghall
Khurd, Harpal Singh Grewal was inimical towards him and had planted 10
Kgs of poppy husk. He was acquitted of the charge vide judment Ex.DX. He
has been falsely implicated in this case due to his friction with aforesaid
SHO. Accused Lakhbir Singh put up specific defence that there is a school
ground by the side of Water Works. He along with others was playing Volly
Ball in the ground. Gurjit Singh along with Baldev Singh and Mohinder
Singh was taking liquor. Their Valley Ball fell in the compound of Water
Works. When he went to fetch the ball after scaling the wall he was caused
injurieds by Gurjit Singh. He also loaded his gun. Other players also came
there and there was fight with chairs. He caught hold of gun of Gurjit Singh
and during the process of snatching gun from him. Gun went off and hit
Paramdeep Singh, who in the meantime came in the street on scooter.
According to him, other accused were not present there and they have been
falsely implicated by SHO Ghall Khurd, Harpal Singh Garewal who was
inimical towards his father accused Darshan Singh. In defence Darshan Singh
also examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar as D.W.-1 and Baldev Singh as D.W.2
and tendered into evidence attested copy of the judgment Ex.DX.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -7 2024:PHHC:059223
judgment and order are based on mis-appreciation of evidence on record and
the settled law. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution had
failed to prove the motive for causing the injuries in the present case. As per
the case of the prosecution, appellant No.1 had a grouse against Gurjit Singh,
complainant as he suspected that he was a secret informer and had given
information to the police in a case under the NDPS Act registered against
Darshan Singh. However, the prosecution failed to prove that Gurjit Singh
was a police informer. Even Gurjit Singh had clearly stated that he had never
given any information of the case registered against Darshan Singh under the
NDPS Act. Learned counsel further contends that even the version of the
prosecution was highly improbable and unbelievable. Even the complainant
was also carrying a gun and the injury to Paramdeep Singh was caused due to
the gun shot fired from the gun of the complainant and not from the gun of
the accused. However, the appellants were falsely involved by twisting the
version.
12. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel stated that in the
present case, the matter was reported by the complainant promptly and there
were no chances of false implication in the present case. Even the version of
the all the prosecution witnesses was found to be highly consistent and the
impugned judgment was legally sustainable.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
14. In the present case, the FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered without any
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -8 2024:PHHC:059223
delay, after the medical treatment was provided to Paramdeep Singh, injured
of the present case. Even, the prosecution witnesses were searchingly cross
examined by the accused in the present case, but it was found that
immediately after suffering the injuries, the main focus of the complainant
was to provide the best possible treatment to the injured and thereafter, the
matter was reported to the police without any delay on the part of the
complainant.
15. This Court also finds no merit in the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants that there was no motive with the accused to cause
injuries to Paramdeep Singh and other injured. In fact, Darshan Singh
suspected that the complainant had acted as a secret informer against him and
had reported the matter to the police. So Darshan Singh exhorted all the other
accused to cause injuries to the complainant and to teach a lesson for getting a
case registered against them by giving a secret information. Still further, the
prosecution examined Gurjit Singh, complainant as PW-3, who had mentioned
the other details regarding causing of injuries to all the injured by the accused
side. He clearly stated that Darshan Singh had raised a Lalkara and they should
not be allowed to escape on that day and taught a lesson for getting registered a
case of poppy husk by giving secret information. Still further, the statement of
PW-3, Gurjit Singh, complainant was duly corroborated by Paramdeep Singh,
one of the injured, who examined as PW-4. Even he supported the testimony of
PW-3, Gurjit Singh and the presence of the Gurjit Singh and Paramdeep Singh
was at the place of occurrence. Apart from that, in the present case, the eye
witness account is available in the shape of testimonies of PW-3, Gurjit Singh
and PW-4, Paramdeep Singh, injured and when the direct evidence is available,
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -9 2024:PHHC:059223
the existence of motive in the said case pales into insignificance. In the present
case, the injuries suffered by three injured namely Paramdeep Singh, Mohinder
Singh and Baldev Singh, which have been duly proved by PW-1, Dr. A.K
Aggarwal and PW-9 Dr. Manish Ahuja. Apart from that, PW-9 Dr. Manish
Ahuja not only proved on record the operation notes regarding the operation
performed on Paramdeep Singh, but also exhibited the record, whereby injury
No. 2 suffered by Paramdeep Singh was declared to be dangerous to life. Apart
from that, I have also perused the detailed findings recorded by the Trial Court
and it can be safely concluded that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the
evidence on record in the light of the various pronouncements made by this
Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Apart from that, the
judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any
material irregularity, illegality or perversity and the said judgment is ordered to
be upheld.
16. Now, adverting to the order of sentence, this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on
08.08.2001 i.e. almost 23 years ago. Even, the injury, which attributed the
offence under Section 307 of IPC was attributed to Darshan Singh, appellant
No.1, who has already died and it has been alleged by the prosecution, the
injuries caused by other persons i.e. appellants No.2 to 4 were either grievous
or simple and none of them was caused any injury, which was declared to
dangerous to life. As per the custody certificate filed in the appeal, Lakhvir
Singh @ Sonu had undergone 04 years, 01 month and 04 days of sentence
(including remission), appellant No.3 Jaswant Singh @ Jassa had undergone
04 years and 20 days of sentence (including remission), whereas, Amarjit
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059223
CRA-S-219-SB-2004 -10 2024:PHHC:059223
Singh @ Tholu, appellant No.4 has already undergone 04 years and 20 days
of sentence (including remission). Even Darshan Singh @ Badal, appellant
No.1 had undergone, 05 years,06 months and 04 days of sentence (including
remission) out of total sentence of seven years. Thus, it is apparent that the
appellants had undergone the substantial period of sentence, out of total
sentence as seven years awarded by the Trial Court. Still further, as per the
custody certificate filed by the State, the appellants are first offender and
were involved in any other criminal activity. Moreover, the appellants had
also faced the agony of trial/appeal for the last 21 years. Consequently, the
sentence imposed on the present appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
17. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned judgment of conviction is upheld and order of sentence is modified to
the extent that the sentence imposed on the present appellants is reduced to the
period already undergone by them and the order of sentence is modified to that
extent. Amount of fine will remain the same.
18. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed off.
19. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed off, accordingly.
20. Case property, if any, be dealt with, and destroyed after the expiry
of period of limitation for filing the appeal, in accordance with law.
21. The trial court record be sent back.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
30.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
