Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Gagandeep Singh And Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision:02.07.2024
State of Punjab ... Appellant
Vs.
Gagandeep Singh & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the applicant/appellant.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. Applicant/appellant - State of Punjab seeks leave to appeal
against the judgment dated 23.12.2022 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge, Bathinda vide which all the accused/respondents No.1 to 4 have been
acquitted.
2. The factual scenario as highlighted by the prosecution is that on
07.09.2010 at 06.05 p.m., SI Harwinderpal Singh while he was present at the
police station, received a telephonic message from SI Kulwant Singh, who
had gone to village Rampura in connection with inquiry of a complaint.
Then SI Harwinderpal Singh along with ASI Sukhpal Singh and other police
officials on a government vehicle reached at the spot. There SI Kulwant
Singh got recorded statement with SI/SHO Harwinderpal Singh to the effect
that on 07.09.2010, on complaint of Satpal Singh S/o Baljinder Singh against
Ramandeep Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh R/o Village Rampura, he along with
1 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -2-
HC Darshan Singh, 1228, HC Jagsir Singh, 175, and complainant Satpal
Singh, visited the place situated on road leading from village Pitho to
Rampura, for enquiry of said complaint. Ramandeep Singh was setting up a
factory on the said road side and he was present at the spot. When SI
Kulwant Singh asked Ramandeep Singh regarding the complaint in question,
then Ramandeep Singh made a phone call to his brother Gagandeep Singh
and friend Bhagwant Singh, asking them to reach at the spot. At about 4:30
p.m. when he was still talking to Ramandeep Singh, then Gagandeep Singh
in his Innova car bearing registration No. PB-03S(T)- 7518 and Bhagwant
Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh in his car make Indica bearing Registration No.
PB-03V- 6031 came there. Their cars were at such a high speed that both the
vehicles collided with each other. After reaching at the spot, both the
aforesaid persons started abusing SI Kulwant Singh and other police
officials. He tried to make them understand but Gagandeep Singh put his
hands on the neck of HC Darshan Singh and pressed it and also tore his
uniform. When SI Kulwant Singh and other police officials tried to rescue
HC Darshan Singh, then Ramandeep Singh picked up 12 bore rifle from his
car and fired shots, with intention to kill the police party. He and other
members of police party saved themselves by taking shelter of his car. The
2 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -3-
entire occurrence was witnessed by Sandeep Singh @ Lamber Singh, who
was present in his fields. Thereafter, SI Kulwant Singh gave information
regarding the occurrence to him on telephone. When the trio saw the police
vehicle coming, then they left the spot alongwith their weapons on their
vehicles. Ruqa was sent through HC Jaswinder Singh to the police station,
on the basis of which FIR No.32 dated 07.09.2010, under sections
307/332/353/186 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, was registered
against the accused persons at Police Station Sadar, Rampura. HC Darshan
Singh along with HC Baljeet Pal was sent to Civil Hospital, Rampura being
in the injured condition.
3. Thereafter, SI Kulwant Singh got recorded his supplementary
statement with SI Harwinderpal Singh to the effect that out of gun shots
fired by Ramandeep Singh, two shots had hit his Maruti Car bearing
registration No. DL-9C-373. One shot had hit at the pane of rear window
towards driver side and the other shot hit at the lower side of front door. He
also stated that as at the time of occurrence, due to firing of shots he was
scared, so he did not pay attention to his vehicle. He also got recorded that
besides accused Gagandeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Bhagwant Singh,
one Dhoota Singh S/o Gaga Singh, R/o Rampura was also there, who gave
3 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -4-
kick blows to HC Darshan Singh and all the accused persons had connived
with one another and had opened fire at police party with the intention to kill
them and had torn uniform of HC Darshan Singh besides beating him.
4. After inspecting the spot, rough site plan was prepared by SI
Harwinderpal Singh. Photographs of the aforesaid Maruti car were also
taken and the same along with said car were taken in police possession.
Broken pieces of glass were collected and converted into sealed parcel.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Then, Investigating Officer SI
Harwinderpal Singh reached at Civil Hospital and collected MLR of HC
Darshan Singh, wherein six injuries with blunt weapon had been mentioned.
Statement of HC Darshan Singh was also recorded. Torn uniform (shirt) of
HC Darshan Singh was also taken in police possession. Accused were
arrested. The vehicles as well as 12 bore gun used in the alleged commission
of offence were taken in police possession. Finding the gun in question
being licensed one, the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act was deleted.
After completion of all the necessary formalities of investigation, challan
was prepared and presented in the Court.
5. Ld. trial Court after finding a prima facie case against all the
accused, charge sheeted them for the offences punishable under Sections
4 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -5-
307/353/332/186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which
they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. As many as 23 witnesses were
examined by prosecution to prove its case. Statements of accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, incriminating evidence put to them was
denied. They claimed innocence and false implication. After considering the
evidence on record, facts and circumstances, learned trial Court acquitted all
the accused persons of the offences for which they had been charge sheeted
vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2022.
6. Aggrieved of the said decision, State of Punjab has preferred
the present appeal against acquittal of the accused persons.
7. We have heard learned State counsel for the appellant and have
also perused the record carefully.
8. Learned State counsel contended that the prosecution version
has been duly proved by prosecution witness PW1 Satpal Singh, PW5 HC
Darshan Singh and PW6 Inspector Kulwant Singh, but evidence of
prosecution has not been appreciated by ld. trial Court properly. Ld. trial
Court failed to appreciate that the complaint filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
has been brought on record as Ex.PG/1 and it has been erroneously observed
that said complaint was not filed before the Area Magistrate. He further
5 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -6-
contended that injuries on the person of HC Darshan Singh have been
proved by PW2 Dr. S.S. Romana, thus prosecution version stands duly
corroborated by medical evidence as well as FSL report and photographs
regarding damage to the Maruti car of Inspector Kulwant Singh caused by
use of fire arms by the accused. He urged that use of fire arm for firing shots
itself is sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. He submitted
that case of the prosecution has been duly proved by way of testimony of the
prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt and all the accused are liable
to be convicted for the offences charged with as per law. It is thus prayed
that leave to appeal be granted, appeal be allowed and the accused be
convicted as charged with appropriate sentence being imposed.
9. It would be appropriate to have a brief resume of the
prosecution evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as
many as 23 witnesses.
10. PW1 Satpal Singh, a material witness produced by prosecution,
made the initial complaint against accused Ramandeep Singh that in the year
2008, he along with Ramandeep Singh had been running liquor vends in the
area of Rampura City in partnership. Ramandeep Singh was to pay Rs.9
lakhs to him. On 07.09.2010, he went to Ramandeep Singh in his fields to
6 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -7-
demand such amount of Rs. 9 lakhs and he talked with him for about 10
minutes. However while conversing, Ramandeep Singh became furious and
said that PW1 was defaming him in public and then by picking up the rifle
lying in his car, threatened to eliminate him. So, PW1 fled from the spot on
his motorcycle and lodged a complaint with the police. His application was
marked to SI Kulwant Singh by SHO Harinderpal Singh. SI Kulwant Singh
and two other police officials were sent with him by the SHO. After
reaching at the spot, SI Kulwant Singh had a talk with Ramandeep Singh
regarding the complaint, upon which Ramandeep Singh made a phone call to
his brother Gagandeep Singh, consequent to which Gagandeep Singh and
Bhagwant Singh came there on two cars. Both the vehicles, which were at a
very fast speed collided with each other. Gagandeep Singh started abusing
PW1 and SI Kulwant Singh. When SI Kulwant Singh tried to pacify them,
Ramandeep Singh and their servant Dhoota Singh had a scuffle with one of
the police officials. After 10 minutes, SHO with 5/6 police officials reached
there. Then they heard noise of two fire-shots of rifle and they saw that
Ramandeep Singh was running through paddy fields, carrying the rifle in his
hand.
11. PW2 Sandeep Singh @ Lamber Singh, who had allegedly
7 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -8-
witnessed the occurrence did not support the prosecution version and was
declared hostile.
12. PW3 Dr. Seema Garg conducted x-ray examination of HC
Darshan Singh.
13. PW3/A Nirmal Singh Kanungo prepared the scaled map.
14. PW5 HC Darshan Singh is the injured police official in the
present case.
15. PW6 HC Kulwant Singh is the complainant.
16. PW7 Inspector Harwinderpal Singh is the Investigating Officer,
who deposed as per the tone and tenor of the investigation conducted by him
of this case.
17. PW8 ASI Darshan Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit
Ex.PW8/A qua lodging of FIR in this case on receipt of ruqa and regarding
deposit of case property by SI/SHO Harwinderpal Singh.
18. PW9 Reetinder Singh produced official record pertaining to
ownership of vehicle No. PB-03V-6031, in the name of accused Bhagwant
Singh.
19. PW10 ASI Baljitpal Singh was one of the members of the
police party headed by PW7 Inspector Harwinderpal Singh, who identified
8 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -9-
his signatures on the memos/documents prepared at the spot and during the
course of investigation.
20. PW11 Gurkirat Singh, Clerk, SDM Office, Mansa, produced
registration record of vehicle No. DL-0C-3736 in the name of Harbans Kaur
w/o Kulwant Singh.
21. PW12 HC Surinder Singh proved general diary entry No. 29
dated 27.1.2010 whereby HC Darshan Singh was temporarily transferred
from P.S. Rampura to P.S. Sadar, Rampura.
22. PW13 HC Jaswinder Singh proved application Ex.PF moved by
Satpal Singh on 07.09.2010 before him being A/MHC of P.S. Sadar,
Rampura. He produced the said complaint before SHO concerned and the
same was marked to SI Kulwant Singh for enquiry.
23. PW14 Anil Kumar Kansal, Notary Public has deposed
regarding attestation of the Power of Attorney executed by Harbans Kaur in
favour of her husband Kulwant Singh regarding Maruti car bearing
registration No. DL-9C-3736.
24. PW15 Karminder Singh, Accounts Officer of Chadda Super
Cars Pvt. Ltd., Mullanpur, Ludhiana, proved invoice dated 05.05.2010 qua
vehicle make Toyota Innova issued in the name of Ramandeep Singh.
25. PW16 ASI Amritpal Singh proved copy of general diary entry
No. 21 dated 24.9.2010 vide which offence under Section 34 IPC was added
in this case by SI Harwinderpal Singh.
9 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -10-
26. PW17 Parteek Saxena, Junior Assistant, Arms Branch, D.M.
Office, Bathinda produced record regarding Arms License SC/67/2013 and
testified that it pertained to the 12 bore gun with 25 cartridges issued in the
name of Ramandeep Singh for self protection. He also proved copy of entry
qua cancellation of said Arms license by the then Additional District
Magistrate, Bathinda
27. PW18 Amritpal, retired Inspector partly investigated the case
and has proved some formal documents/memos prepared by him during the
course of his investigation.
28. PW19 HC Jarnail Singh is a formal witness and has tendered in
evidence his affidavit qua deposit of parcel of broken pieces of glass in the
office of FSL, Chandigarh in intact condition on 02.11.2010.
29. PW20 ASI Jagjit Singh produced original order dated
24.02.2010 vide which ASI Kulwant Singh was posted at P.S. Sadar,
Rampura.
30. PW21 Chamkaur Singh, Clerk, RTA Office, Ludhiana,
produced registration record of Accent Car No. PB-10BS-6019 in the name
of Gagandeep Singh accused.
31. PW22 Satpal Singh, retired ASI has deposed that he had joined
Mechanical Transport Section, Police Lines, Bathinda in the year 1996 as
motorcycle mechanic and retired from the said section on 31.12.2015. He
10 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -11-
did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He stated that
he had no knowledge about the facts of this case and that he had not given
Mechanical Test report of any vehicle relevant to this case.
32. As noted in forgoing paras, statements of accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were
put to them but they denied the same and pleaded innocence.
33. In defence, accused persons have examined DW1 Nachattar
Singh, Registry Clerk, Tehsil Office, Rampura Phul, who produced record
pertaining to sale deed No. 2769 dated 07.09.2010 and produced copy of the
same as Ex.D1 along with Jamabandi Ex.D2. He deposed that as per said
sale deed, Gagandeep Singh and Ramandeep Singh were present in the
office of Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul at the time of registration of the said
sale deed.
34. DW2 Ct. Bhawandeep Singh produced dispatch register
containing entries w.e.f. 16.07.2010. He stated that there is no entry of the
relevant date i.e. 10.10.2010 in the register w.e.f. 16.07.2010.
35. DW3 HC Jagjit Singh has produced DDR registers of P.S.
Sadar, Rampura. He proved copy of DDR No. 31 dated 07.09.2010 and
copies of DDRs No. 1 to 25 dated 12.09.2010.
36. DW4 Manjit Singh, Senior Assistant produced official record
pertaining to copy of letter No. 2392 dated 25.04.2011 and letter No. 71
dated 07.05.2011 and photocopy of call details from 01.09.2010 to
11 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -12-
10.09.2010.
37. DW5 Hardeep Singh, Record Keeper produced summoned file
No. 16 dated 08.11.2010 titled as 'State Vs. Unknown', whereby police filed
cancellation report on 08.11.2010 in FIR No. 27 dated 18.2.2010, under
Sections 354/324/506/34 IPC at P.S. Rampura. He has further stated that the
trial Court had accepted the said cancellation report.
38. DW6 Sukhdev Singh, Patwari, produced revenue record i.e.
certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 and copy of 'Akas Latha'
and deposed that portion marked in blue colour on Ex.DW6/E is land of
Waterworks of village Rmapura.
39. DW7 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert,
after examination of specimen signatures/hand writing with the disputed
signatures/handwriting proved his report Ex. DW7/A.
40. DW8 Harbaksh Singh Mander, Handwriting and Finger Prints
Expert, also proved his report that disputed signatures Q1 were written by
some other person and were the result of forgery by impersonation. He
proved his such report as Ex. DW8/1.
41. It is well settled position that while hearing appeals against
acquittal, the judgments of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly and
Courts have to be extremely careful while hearing such appeals. In the case
of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2016 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 319, Hon'ble the Supreme Court reiterated that generally an
appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal
from that of an appeal against the conviction. It was held that in an appeal
12 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -13-
against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused is reinforced the Appellate Court would interfere with the order of
acquittal only when perversity of fact and law was found. A word of caution
was also added by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that paramount consideration
of Court was to dispense substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice,
which could arise by acquitting the accused, who is guilty of an offence. No
interference should be caused merely on account of two views being
possible.
42. After having heard learned State counsel for the appellant at
length and having perused the impugned judgment as well as the other
relevant record, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution in the
instant matter was unable to prove its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
43. As per PW1 Satpal Singh, in the year 2008, he was running
liquor vends in partnership with accused Ramandeep Singh in the area of
Rampura City and an amount of Rs.9 lakhs was outstanding towards
Ramandeep Singh. When on 07.09.2010, he went to the fields of
Ramandeeep Singh for asking him to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.9
lakhs, Ramandeep Singh became furious during their conversation and then
by taking the rifle lying in his car, threatened to eliminate him but he saved
himself by fleeing from the spot on his motorcycle.
44. Though as per complaint Ex.PF and above said statement of
PW1 complainant Satpal Singh, Ramandeep Singh owed him Rs.9 lakhs,
13 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -14-
after settlement of accounts qua running of liquor vends in partnership, but
during his cross-examination PW1 has testified that he had not settled the
accounts with Ramandeep Singh and it was his younger brother Gagandeep
Singh, who used to settle the accounts. He also admitted that he was not
having any such document showing that Rs.9 lakhs were due from
Ramandeep Singh. He further admitted that he had never lodged any
complaint with the police qua the same and they had been meeting with each
other in routine prior to the occurrence and no dispute or altercation had
taken place between them prior to this. Ld. trial Court has thus rightly held
that there was no occasion for PW1 Satpal Singh to visit the fields of
Ramandeep Singh with the alleged demand of Rs.9 lakhs on the day of
alleged occurrence i.e. 07.09.2010, in connection with the alleged business
of liquor vends which were seen in the year 2008. No document has been
produced on record by the prosecution qua alleged business and rendition of
accounts between Satpal Singh and Ramandeep Singh to corroborate the
testimony of PW1. It is a matter of record that there is no documentary
evidence on record to indicate any partnership between PW1 and
Ramandeep Singh or Gagandeep Singh qua running of liquor vend in 2008
So far as the threat regarding elimination given by accused Ramandeep
14 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -15-
Singh to PW1 Satpal Singh is concerned, no cognizable offence was
reported by PW1 Satpal Singh through his complaint Ex.PF. So again there
was no occasion for the police wing of Sadar Rampura to swing into action
to enquire in the said complaint.
45. Though, PW1 is shown to be one of the attesting witness of the
memos prepared on the spot by the Investigating Officer but he did not utter
a single word about preparation of such memos/documents in his presence.
From the perusal of testimony of this witness, it also transpires that he had
made material improvements in his testimony while stating that accused
Ramandeep Singh and his servant Dhoota Singh scuffled with one of the
police officials and they saw Ramandeep running through the fields having a
rifle in his hand. He further stated that after about 1½ hour, DSP came at the
spot, whereas there is no evidence to show that any DSP was summoned or
reached at the spot or was present there. Due to material improvements in
his testimony, credibility of the complainant has been shaken causing a
serious dent in the prosecution version.
46. It is not disputed that HC Darshan Singh and SI Kulwant Singh
were public servants, posted at P.S. Sadar, Bathinda at the time of the
alleged occurrence. Instant case has been registered at the instance of SI
15 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -16-
Kulwant Singh, who got recorded his statement Ex. PW6/A with SI/SHO
Harvinderpal Singh regarding the alleged occurrence, on the basis of which
present FIR had been registered against the accused persons. There are
specific allegations by the prosecution that accused Gagandeep Singh
manhandled HC Darshan Singh and tore his uniform. So HC Darshan Singh
being a public servant was required to file a complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C.
before the competent Court regarding commission of offence punishable
under Section 186 IPC, but no such complaint was either filed by HC
Darshan Singh or any of his superior officers before any competent Court, to
take cognizance of the offences in question. Rather the local police
registered the instant case against the accused on the basis of statement of
HC Karnail Singh and after conducting investigation, challan was presented
against the accused persons. Complaint Ex.PG/1 under Section 195 Cr.P.C
which had been placed on record by PW6 SI Kulwant Singh, was not filed
before the learned Area Magistrate as per law and has been brought on
record just to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is also to be
noticed at this stage that torn dress of HC Darshan Singh was stated to have
been sealed at the spot as per statement of PW7 Harwinderpal while PW6 SI
Kulwant Singh stated that it was sealed at the hospital. A number of
16 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -17-
labourers are stated to be present at the spot but statement of none was
admittedly recorded with no explanation for the same coming forth.
47. It is also the specific case of the prosecution that HC Darshan
Singh had suffered injuries. In order to prove his injuries, the prosecution
has examined PW2 Dr. S.S. Romana, but perusal of affidavit Ex. PW2/A
that has been tendered in evidence by the the aforesaid witness, is silent as to
when HC Darshan Singh was medico-legally examined by him. Even in his
statement on oath, PW2 has not reiterated the injuries suffered on the person
of HC Darshan Singh. The allegation of prosecution regarding use of
criminal force or assaulting HC Darshan Singh by accused Ramandeep
Singh, thereby obstructing and deterring him to discharge his official duty,
has remained unsubstantiated on record.
48. Existence of basic ingredients constituting an offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC are also not proved on record. PW6
Inspector Kulwant Singh only in his supplementary statement stated that two
gun shots fired by Ramandeep Singh had hit his Maruti car and Dhoota
Singh who was also present there had given kick blows to HC Darshan
Singh. However in his first version, HC Kulwant Singh had named only
three accused, Ramandeep Singh, his brother Gagandeep Singh and
17 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -18-
Bhagwant Singh and was completely silent regarding the presence of Dhoota
Singh and there is not even a whisper in his earlier version that he was
accompanying any of the accused persons in the car or was present in nearby
fields. It is highly improbable PW6 SI Kulwant Singh would not have noticed the
presence of accused Dhoota Singh in the present occurrence and named him
only in the supplementary statement at a later stage. PW6 SI Kulwant Singh
also stated that when accused Ramandeep Singh fired shots at the police
party, members of police party took shelter behind the Maruti Car belonging
to SI Kulwant Singh, on which they had come to the place of occurrence. It
is again not believable that earlier he did not notice the breaking of window
panes of the said car and the pellets hitting the said car and stated about the
same only in his supplementary statement.
49. As per prosecution version, Kulwant Singh apprised about the
alleged occurrence to SHO/SI Harwinderpal Singh through his cell phone
and after sometime, SI Harwinderpal Singh along with police party reached
at the spot on the official vehicle and on seeing the police party, accused fled
from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thus, after firing of gun
shots by the accused Ramandeep Singh and subsequent arrival of SHO/SI
Harvinderpal Singh at the spot, considerable time would have elapsed, but
18 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -19-
prosecution is completely silent as to what transpired in the interregnum.
50. It is further noticed that in order to prove that accused
Ramandeep Singh fired shots from his licensed 12 bore gun, which hit the
Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-9C-3736 belonging to SI Kulwant
Singh, prosecution relied upon Mechanical Test report of said car, allegedly
prepared by ASI Satpal Singh. ASI Satpal Singh while appearing as PW22
has shattered the veracity of prosecution version while stating that he had no
knowledge about the facts of the case and he had not given Mechanical Test
report of any vehicle regarding this case and he had never been joined in
investigation in this case by the Investigating Officer. PW22 denied
recording of his statement, mark 22/A on 20.09.2010 or that maruti car in
question was ever produced before him for mechanical inspection. This
witness proceeded to deny his handwriting or signature on the mechanical
report mark 22/A. He was declared hostile but despite being cross-examined,
nothing useful could be extracted.
51. The 12 bore gun DBBL belonging to accused Ramandeep Singh
which was taken into police possession, was not got checked from any
expert qua its being in the working condition. There is no such FSL report
on record that it was used to fire shots in the commission of the alleged
19 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -20-
offence. PW7 Inspector Harwinderpal Singh in his cross-examination has
stated that no weapon was recovered from the spot and no empty/used
cartridges were recovered from the spot, which is again fatal to the
prosecution case.
52. So far as authenticity of photographs brought on record as Mark
A1 to A6 showing damage to the Maruti car of SI Kulwant Singh are
concerned, the same have also not been proved on record in accordance with
law. PW7 Inspector Harwinderpal Singh deposed that he clicked the
photographs of Maruti car in question on his mobile phone and then handed
over the mobile phone to HC Baljitpal for getting the same developed.
Whereas PW10 HC Baljitpal has deposed that on 12.09.2010, on the
direction of SI Harwinderpal Singh, he clicked those photographs in the
mobile phone of SI Harwinderpal Singh, which were got developed from a
shop at Rampura. But no photographer from any photographic lab has been
examined in the Court to prove the authenticity of said photographs.
Moreover, the aforesaid material contradiction between the statements of
PW7 and PW10 read in the given factual matrix goes to the root of the case
rendering the prosecution story to be highly doubtful.
53. PW2 Sandeep Singh @ Lamber Singh who is alleged to be an
20 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -21-
eye witness of the occurrence was not involved in the investigation
proceedings by the Investigating Officer. Otherwise also, this witness has
not supported the prosecution case on the material points and was declared
hostile.
54. Accused Ramandeep Singh and Gagandeep Singh have taken a
plea of alibi at the time of the alleged occurrence and in order to substantiate
their plea, they have proved on record copy of lease deed/Patanama Ex.D1,
executed by accused Gagandeep Singh in favour of Balwinder Kaur. From
the perusal of Ex.D1, it transpires that accused Gagandeep Singh and
Ramandeep Singh were present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Rampura
Phul on 07.09.2010 and their photograph was clicked at 01.54 p.m. on
07.09.2010 in the presence of the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of
said lease deed. Ld. trial Court has rightly observed that after marking the
presence of persons in the office of Sub Registrar, number of formalities are
to be completed during the registration process and a person has to visit the
Tehsil Complex in the early hours before noon time to complete the
formalities for execution of a deed and its registration. Information Ex.
DW4/B was supplied by S.P. (D), Khanna to Director General of Police,
Law & Order, Punjab, Chandigarh in connection with Criminal Misc.
No.36221 of 2010 in case titled as 'Gagandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab', in
21 of 22
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081967-DB
CRM-A-772-MA-2023 (O&M) -22-
connection with this case, wherein on the basis of mobile phone location of
different persons, including accused Ramandeep Singh, it was reported that
he was using mobile Phone No. 95016-33030 and as per record, tower
location of said mobile phone on 07.09.2010 from 4.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
was at Ajit Road, Bathinda, Dashmesh Public School Bathinda, Kamla
Nursery, Bathinda, village Burj Kahan Sing, Rampura, Mehraj Basti, Distt.
Bathinda and as per record, the location of village Pitho was not being
displayed. Thus a serious dent is caused in the prosecution version.
55. Thus it is apparent that prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused who
have been rightly acquitted by the ld. trial Court. Learned counsel for the
State is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the
impugned judgment dated 23.12.2022 which calls for interference by this
Court.
56. In view of the above, application seeking leave to appeal being
bereft of any merit is dismissed.
57. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
( LISA GILL ) ( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
JUDGE JUDGE
02.07.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
22 of 22
