Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Shankar Singh Etc on 6 September, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Reserved on: 02.09.2024
Pronounced on: 06.09.2024
1. CRA-D-694-DBA-2004
State of Punjab .....Appellant
Versus
Sikander Singh @ Rinku and others .....Respondents
2. CRA-S-2381-SB-2003
Sikander Singh .....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 1 (in CRA-D-694-DBA-2004) &
for the appellant (in CRA-S-2381-SB-2003).
Mr. S.S.Bhullar, Advocate for
Ms. Ishima Randhawa, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 (in CRA-D-694-DBA-2004).
(leave to appeal qua respondent No. 2 - Jagtar Singh
already declined vide order dated 09.08.2004).
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since both the criminal appeals (supra) arise from a
common judgment, therefore, they are amenable for a common verdict
becoming recorded thereons.
2. CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 is directed by the convict-
appellant-Sikander Singh, against the verdict of conviction, as made on
09.12.2003, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc),
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -2-
Amritsar, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the
accused-appellant, thus, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to
record a finding of acquittal against the accused qua offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. However, the appellant-convict
was ordered to be convicted under Sections 326/34 IPC and under
Section 323 IPC.
3. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on
09.12.2003, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to impose
upon the convict (supra) both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of
fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner :-
"..... I have heard Sikander Singh and Amarjit Singh and
their ld. Counsel in the matter of sentence and taking into
consideration their submission of lenient view, each of
them is awarded seven year R.I. And fine of Rs. 2000/- and
in default, two months R.I. u/s 326/34 IPC, and six months
R.I. u/s 323 IPC. Both the sentences shall run
concurrently...."
4. The convict-appellant becomes aggrieved from the above
drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the
consequent thereto sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became
imposed upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and
hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the criminal appeal bearing
No., CRA-S-2381-SB-2003, before this Court.
5. The State of Punjab, has also instituted criminal appeal
bearing No. CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 with a prayer that the impugned
verdict (supra) of the learned trial Court be modified, and, the accused
be also convicted and sentenced for the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -3-
Factual background
6. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.3.02,
Sandip Kumar cousin brother of Major Kumar was to appear in English
paper of matriculation examination and his examination centre was in
Govt. High School of Bhilowal Pacca. Major Singh and Ravi Kumar
(since deceased) accompanied Sandip Kumar to the examination centre.
After the commencement of the examination, Major Kumar and Ravi
Kumar were present near the compound of the wall of the school, where
Satnam Singh s/o Kashmir Singh resident of V. Veroke came in
connection with the paper of some other person. Satnam Singh and
Ravi Kumar had verbal dispute over the passing of the slips in the
examination hall. Satnam Singh became enraged and left the place by
challenging him that he would see him. At about 10.30 A.M. Major
Singh, Ravi Kumar and Satpal son of Sohan Lal r/o V. Awan Lakha
Singh were present there and were talking with each other when
Satnam Singh accompanied by Amarjit Singh and Sikandar Singh and
some other boys came there. Amarjit Singh and Sikander Singh raised
lalkara that Ravi Kumar be not allowed to go away, as he had
intimidated Satnam Singh earlier to go away when he was alone.
Amarjit Singh and Sikander Singh respectively caught hold right and
left arm of Ravi Kumar. Satnam Singh took out dagger from his dab
and gave a blow on the abdomen of Ravi Kumar, owing to which, he
fell down. When Major Kumar and Sat Pal tried to intervene, Amarjit
Singh and other accused gave him fist blows. On raising noise by Major
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -4-
Kumar and Satpal, the accused ran away. Major Kumar and Sat Pal
were taking Ravi Kumar in injured condition to the hospital at Amritsar,
but on the way, he succumbed to his injuries. The statement of Major
Kumar was recorded by Jarnail Singh SHO near the crossing of
Chogawan, which is Ex.PA and on the basis of that F.I.R. Ex. PA/3 was
registered.
Investigation proceedings
7. S.I. accompanied by Major Kumar went to the place of the
occurrence. He conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared report
Ex. PF. The dead body was sent to mortuary for the purpose of post
mortem through HC Jasbir Singh and C. Baljit Singh. He went to the
place of occurrence and recovered from there blood stained earth which
was sealed in a parcel and was seized vide memo Ex. PE. After the post
mortem on the dead body, the clothes of the deceased were also taken
into possession. The site plan of the place of the occurrence which was
prepared by him is Ex. PT. The accused were arrested.
8. After completion of investigations by the investigating
officer concerned, into the FIR (supra), he instituted an affirmative
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Committal Judge
concerned.
Committal proceedings
9. Finding the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC, to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus the learned
committal Court vide order dated 03.07.2002, committed the case for
trial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -5-
Trial Court Proceedings
10. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections
302/323/34 of the IPC became framed, against the accused concerned,
to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.
11. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution
examined ten witnesses. After completion of recording of the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar, drew proceedings under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and,
pleaded innocence. The accused examined Swinder Singh as DW-1 in
their defence.
12. After conclusion of the trial, as, became entered into the
FIR (supra), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, the
latter proceeded to make the afore verdict of conviction, and, also made
the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon, the appellant(s).
Submissions of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant.
13. The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant
herein, has vigorously argued before this Court, that the impugned
verdict of conviction, and consequent therewith sentences (supra), as
imposed, upon the convict-appellant, both become ridden with a gross
infirmity of gross mis-appreciation, and non-appreciation of the
evidence, existing on record. Therefore, he has argued that the appeal
be accepted, and, the verdict, as challenged before this Court, be
quashed, and set aside.
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -6-
Submissions of the learned State Counsel
14. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued
before this Court, that the learned trial Court has erred in not
appreciating the fact, that both the accused (supra) had common
intention in causing the death of Ravi Kumar (since deceased).
Therefore, he has argued that the appeal preferred by the State be
accepted and the accused be convicted and sentenced for an offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Moreover, he has also argued
that the appeal, as preferred by the convict-appellant be dismissed.
Case dependent upon the testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-
3.
15. For proving the charges (supra) drawn against the convicts,
the prosecution made reliance upon the depositions of ocular witnesses
to the occurrence, who respectively stepped into the witness box, as
PW-1 and PW-3.
16. PW-1-Major Kumar (Complainant) in his examination-in-
chief testified that Sandip Kumar is the son of his uncle Ashok Kumar.
On 06.03.2002, he was to appear in English paper (matriculation
examination) in Govt. High School Bhilowal Centre. He alongwith
Ravi Kumar son of Parveen Kumar had accompanied Sandip Kumar to
the Centre at Govt. High School Bhilowal. The paper commenced at
09.00 A.M. and Sandip Kumar went inside to appear in the said paper.
PW-1 testified that he (complainant) and Ravi Kumar (deceased) stood
outside the room. PW-1 further testified that Satnam Singh r/o village
Vairoke had also come to the Centre alongwith his candidate. Satnam
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -7-
Singh had some altercation with Ravi Kumar regarding some slips.
Satnam Singh then went away remarking that Ravi Kumar would be
seen.
17. PW-1 further echoed that when at about 10.30 A.M., he
alongwith Ravi Kumar were having a conversation with Satpal, then,
Satnam Singh, Amarjit Singh, Sikander Singh and Jagtar Singh came
there. PW-1 identified all the accused except Satnam Singh who were
present in the Court on the relevant day. Amarjit Singh and Sikander
Singh @ Rinku raised lalkara that Ravi Kumar should not be spared.
Accused Amarjit Singh caught hold of Ravi Kumar from his right arm
while accused Sikander Singh caught hold of his left arm. Accused
Satnam Singh took out a dagger from his dab and with the said dagger,
he gave a blow in the abdomen of Ravi Kumar. He (complainant) and
Satpal went forward and tried to save Ravi Kumar. Accused Jagtar
Singh and others also gave him fist blows on his back, nose and face.
Thereafter, he and Satpal raised alarm. The accused persons fled with
their respective weapons.
18. PW-1 further testified that a vehicle was arranged and Ravi
Kumar was brought to Amritsar but he succumbed to his injuries. He
then reported the matter to the police by making his statement Ex. PA.
19. PW-1 also suffered the ordeal of an exacting cross
examination, and, yet during the course thereof, the defence counsel
failed to elicit from him, any echoing qua the deposition(s) (supra), as,
comprised in his examination-in-chief rather being engineered, false, or,
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -8-
contrived. Therefore, credence is to be assigned to the deposition of
PW-1.
Corroboration lent to the statement of PW-1 by the deposition of
PW-3 and analysis of the testification(s).
20. The statement of PW-1 is fully corroborated by the
deposition of PW-3. He too, has spoken therein qua his witnessing the
commission of the penal act by the accused upon the victim. Even
during the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination, to which he was
subjected to, he remained unscathed.
21. A conjoint analysis of the testification(s), as made by the
ocular witnesses (supra), to the relevant occurrence suggests, that their
respectively made statements are not ridden with any taint of theirs
making any gross improvements or embellishments vis-a-vis their
respectively recorded statements in writing. Moreover, their
respectively made testification(s) are also free from any taint of any
intra-se contradiction(s) intra-se their respectively made testification(s).
Moreover when they also render unblemished inter-se corroboration(s)
to their respectively rendered ocular accounts qua the penal occurrence.
Thus, completest credence is to be meted to their respectively made
testification(s). Therefore, on the basis of the respectively made
testification(s), by the credible ocular witnesses to the occurrence, thus,
the charge against the accused but stands fully established.
Medical Evidence
22. The doctor who conducted an autopsy on the body of the
deceased stepped into the witness box as PW-4. During the course of
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -9-
his examination-in-chief, he proved the post mortem report, as became
authored by him. He also proved the existence thereons of his valid
signatures. The post mortem report is assigned Exhibit PU. The relevant
observations, as become narrated in Exhibit (supra) are extracted
hereinafter.
" 1. 2.5 x 1 cm incised stab wound was present on right side of
abdomen, 9 cm away from umblicus at 7 o' clock position. The wound
was elipical in shape and obliquely placed. Margins were clean cut
and clotted blood was present.
23. Further, the doctor concerned opined that the cause of
death of deceased was owing to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
injury no. 1 (supra) to the vital organ. All the injuries were declared to
be ante mortem in nature and also were declared to be sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course in nature.
24. Since the medical account but corroborates credible eye
witness account therebys the charge against the accused is concluded to
be efficaciously proven.
25. The learned trial Judge concerned appears to become led to
convict and consequently sentence the accused for an offence
punishable under Sections 326/323/34 IPC, thus, on the premise that
the principal offender was absconding accused Satnam Singh, against
whom sessions trial commenced in the year 2004, thus after his
surrendering before the trial Court concerned. Furthermore, therebys
the learned trial Judge concerned, segregated the incriminatory roles of
the principal offender (supra) and the ones attributed to the present
appellant.
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -10-
26. Since the principal offender delivered a fatal stab blow on
the abdomen of the deceased, whereas, the present convicts/appellants
did respectively hold the left and right arm of the deceased, therebys, it
was concluded that the incriminatory role (supra) attributed to the
present applicants did not make them vicariously liable for the offence
of murder committed by the principal offender one Satnam Singh.
27. The said made segregation of incriminations against the
principal offender and the present accused-appellants, is an ill made
segregation, as therebys the principal of vicarious criminal liability
founded upon Section 34 IPC but becomes completely eclipsed.
28. Moreover, since the present accused-appellants did in the
above manner incriminatorily facilitate the principal offender to deliver
the fatal stab blow on the stomach of the deceased, therebys, they did
make themselves liable to become convicted, and, also became liable to
be sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
Final Order of this Court.
CRA-S-2381-SB-2003
29. In consequence, subject to the decision made in CRA-D-
694-DBA-2004, the impugned verdict of conviction, and, also the
consequent therewith order of sentence, as becomes respectively
recorded, and, imposed, upon the appellants-convicts by the learned
trial Judge concerned, does not suffer from any gross perversity, or
absurdity of gross mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation of the
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118070-DB
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-2381-SB-2003 -11-
evidence on record. In consequence, there is no merit in the apposite
appeal, and, the same is dismissed.
CRA-D-694-DBA-2004
30. Accordingly, in view of the above, the instant appeal is
allowed. Consequently after allowing the instant appeal filed by the State
of Punjab, this Court quashes the impugned verdict of acquittal, as made
by the learned trial Judge concerned, wherethrough, he made a finding of
acquittal in respect of a charge drawn for an offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC, and modifies the same to the extent that
respondent No.1 is held guilty for an offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, in addition to the
offence(s) for which respondent No.1 stand already convicted.
31. The accused/respondent No. 1 is directed to be produced in
custody before this Court, on 16.09.2024 for his being heard on the
quantum of sentence.
32. Records of the Court below, be sent down forthwith. Case
property, if any, if not required, be dealt with, and, destroyed after the
expiry of the period of limitation. Miscellaneous application(s), if any,
is/are, also disposed of.
33. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
06.09.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
