Punjab-Haryana High Court
Buta Khan vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(I) CRA
CRA-D-31-DB-2005 (O&M)
Buta Khan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
(II) CRA
CRA-D-34-DB-2005 (O&M)
Bali Khan & another ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
(III) CRA
CRA-D-62-DB-2005 (O&M)
Nazar Khan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
(IV) CRR
CRR-484-2005 (O&M)
Manjit Kaur ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
Date
ate of Decision: 05.03.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik and Mr. Sameydeen, Advocate
Advocates,
for the appellant(s) in CRA-D--31-DB-2005 &
CRA-D-34-DB-2005.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with
Ms. Jyotnoor Kaur Sethi and Mr. Navreet Dhaliwal, Advocate
Advocatess,
for the appellant in CRA-D-62--DB-2005.
VIMAL KUMAR
2025.03.06 13:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
(2)
Mr. Arun Walia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Marinal Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRR-484-2005
2005 and
for the private respondent/complainant,
in CRA-D-31-DB-2005; CRA--D-62-DB-2005 &
CRA-D-34-DB-2005.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned
above mentioned set of three appeals and a
revision petition,
petition assailing the same very judgment dated 05.11.2004 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby accused namely Buta
Khan, Gehna Khan (since expired), Bali Khan, Sher Khan and Nazar Khan
have been found guilty of having murdered Sehaj Pal Singh and having
caused injuries to Kamaljit Sharma and his sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok
Sharma. While Buta Khan, Bali Khan, She
Sherr Khan and Nazar Khan challenge
their conviction for offence under Section 302, 326, 325, 323, 148/149 IPC,
IPC
Manjit Kaur - wife of Sharanjit Singh (complainant) (petitioner in CRR-484
484-
2005) seekss enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused
accused.
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.109
No.109 dated 24.08.2001 registered at P.S.
Payal, under Sections 302, 316, 325, 148, 149 IPC (Ex.PA/2) lodged at the
instance of Sharanjit Singh.. The translated gist of his statement
tatement (Ex.PA)
reads as under:
"II am an agriculturist. Yesterday i.e. on 23.08.2001, when I alongwith my
son Sehaj Pal Singh was returning home from bus
bus-stand, Dhamot Kalan and
was passing in front of the house of Kamaljit Sharma at about 6.00 PM, we
noticed that Gehna Khan alongwith his three sons Bali Khan (armed
armed with
Sua),, Sher Khan @ Guddu (armed
armed with gandassa), Buta Khan (armed
armed with
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
gandassa and Nazar Khan son of Darbara Khan (armed with gandassa)
gandassa) gandassa
standing there. Upon seeing us, Gehna Khan raised a lalkara that Sehaj Pal
Singh be caught and be not spared and be taught a lesson for quarreling with
Buta Khan. Thereupon, Buta Khan gave a blow with gandassa hitting Sehaj
Pal Singh on the back of his head as a result of which he fell down. When I
raised alarm, Kamaljit Sharma and his sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok
Sharma reached there. Kamaljit Sharma asked the accused as to why they
were causing injuries upon which Gehna Khan raised a lalkara threatening
them to keep away failing which they would also be dealt with in the same
manner. However, Kamaljit Sharma did not step aside. Bali Khan gave a
blow with his sua on the left flank of Kamaljit Sharma. Thereafter, Nazar
Khan gave a blow with gandassa hitting the forehead of Ashok Sharma.
Then Sher Khan inflicted a blow with gandassa on the back of head of
Pawan Sharma. Thereafter, Nazar Khan gave a blow with his gandassa
from its reverse side hitting the left arm of Kamaljit Sharma. In the
meantime, Lakhbir Singh son of Nazar Singh also came there and thereafter
the accused fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. I
got admitted my son Sehaj Pal Singh in DMC&H, Ludhiana for treatment,
whereas Kamaljit Sharma and his sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma
were got admitted at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment by Balwinder
Singh, Ex-Sarpanch.
Ex Today i.e. on 24.08.2001
24.08.2001, my son Sehaj Pal Singh has
expired. The motive is that about 4/5 days back, there was a minor dispute
between
ween my son and Buta Khan and on account of the same, my son has
been murdered. Legal action be taken."
3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police. Inquest
report was prepared. Post-mortem
Post mortem examination was got conducted on the
dead body of Sehaj Pal Singh.. The police visited the place of occurrence and
prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained soil was lifted from the place of
occurrence. Statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161
Cr.P.C. All the accused
a were arrested on 26.08.2001. During the course of
interrogation, accused Bali Khan suffered a disclosure statement on
29.08.2001 (Ex.PQ) stating that he had concealed a sua stained with blood
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
near a Jamun tree at his tubewell motor. Accused Sher Khan also suffered a
disclosure statement (Ex.PR) with regard to his having concealed blood
stained gandassa in the room of tubewell motor. Accus
Accused Buta Khan made a
disclosure statement (Ex.PS)
( as regards concealment of blood stained
gandassa in the same room of the tubewell. Accused Nazar Khan also made
a disclosure statement (Ex.PT) regarding concealment of a blood stained
gandassa in the heap of soil lying outside the tubewell room. Pursuant to the
aforesaid disclosure statements, the accused got the respective weapons
recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P1 to
Ex.P-4. The blood stained weapons were ssent
ent for forensic examination and
as per the report of the FSL, the same were found to be stained with human
blood.
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against all the five
accused namely Gehna Khan (since expired)
expired), Bali Khan, Sher Khan @
Guddu, Buta Khan and Nazar Khan on 17.10.2001 in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana,
Ludhiana who committed the case to the Court
of Sessions vide order dated 05.11.2001.. Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur,, finding sufficient
icient grounds to presume that the accused had killed
Sehaj Pal and had injured others accordingly framed charges against all the
accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 323, 324, 325,
326/149 IPC on 18.01.2002.
5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 12 PWs.
PWs
The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:-
PW-1 Sharanjit Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, stated in
tune with the version got recorded by him in the FIR. He specifically
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
stated as regards the injuries inflicted to the deceased and also to
complainant Kamaljit Sharma, Ashok and Pawan by the accused.
PW-2 Kamaljit Sharma (injured) stated that on 23.08.2001, when he
alongwith his sons
sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma was present in
his house, they heard noise commotion outside the house and when
they stepped out, they saw Gehna Khan, Sher Khan, Bali Khan,
Nazar Khan and Buta
B Khan standing there and that while Bali Khan
was carrying a sua,, the remaining accused were armed with
gandassas He stated that when Sharanjit Singh and his son Sehaj Pal
gandassas.
Singh were seen coming from the side of bus
bus-stop,
stop, accused Gehna
Khan raised a lalkara that Sehaj Pal Singh be not spared and be
taught a lesson for quarreling with Buta Khan and upon which
accused attacked Sehaj Pal Singh and inflicted injuries to him. He
stated that although
hough he and his son stepped forward to intervene, but
Gehna Khan raised a lalkara telling them to step aside failing which
they would meet the same fate. PW
PW-2 described the injuries caused
by the accused to Sehaj Pal Singh (deceased) and to others in the
same manner as described by the complainant.
PW-3 HC Manjit Singh,
Singh who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his
affidavit Ex.PC,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on 24.08.2001,, he was
posted as Malkhana
Malkhana Incharge, P.S.Payal and that Inspector Charan
Singh had deposited with him case property i.e. parcel containing
blood stained soil, parcel of 'nikka
nikkar' blue colour of deceased, parcel
of blood stained clothes on 24.08.2001 aass well as parcel of blood
stained spear and three separate parcels of blood st
stained gandassas
on 29.08.2001.
29.08.2001 He further deposed that on 11.09.2001,, all the parcels
were sent through Constable Karnail Singh for depositing the same in
the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, which were accordingly
deposited on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in
his possession, the same were not tampered with.
PW-4 Pawan Kumar (injured) narrated the occurrence in tune with case of
prosecution.
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
PW-5 Ashok Kumar (injured) also stated regarding the occurrence in an
identical manner, as stated by complainant
complainant.
PW-6 Dr. G.P.Mangla, Medical Officer, RC Bhagwan Nagar, Ludhiana,
who had conducted post-mortem
mortem examination on the dead body of
Sehaj Pal Singh on 24.08.2001,, proved the post
post-mortem
mortem report as
Ex.P , wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body and
Ex.PD,
opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a
result of head injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature and was antemortem in nature.
PW-7 Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana
Ludhiana, who had
medico legally examined Kamaljit Sharma, Pawan Kumar and Ashok
Kumar on 23.08.2001, proved their respective MLRs as Ex.
Ex.PF,
PF,
Ex.PG and Ex.PH,
Ex.PH, wherein he described the injuries found on their
the
person
person.
PW-8 Constable Karnail Singh,
Singh who is a formal witness, tendered into
evidence his affidavit Ex.PJ,
Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on 11.09.2001,
11.09.2001
MHC Manjit Singh had handed over to him the case property for
depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, which
he accordingly deposited on the same day and that as long as the
parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with.
PW-8 Ashwani Kumar, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the rough
site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PK.
PK.
(This
This witness is numbered as PW-8 by mistake)
PW-9 Constable Gurcharan Singh stated that on 24.08.2001, Inspector
Charan Singh had handed over to him the dead body of Sehaj Pal
Singh alongwith inquest report to ggett the autopsy conducted and that
he accordingly got the needful done.
PW-10 Inspector Charan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer in the
present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation
conducted by him right from the lodging of FIR upto the filing of
challan. He stated that all the accused were arrested on 26.08.2001,
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
and were interrogated by him on 29.08.2001 pursuant to which they
made disclosure statements and got the weapon of offences
recovered. He proved various documents/memos prepared during the
course of investigation.
PW-11 Manoj Kumar, Record Keeper, Dayana
Dayanand
nd Medical College &
Hospital, Ludhiana,
Ludhiana, who had produced the patient record in respect of
Sehaj Pal Singh, proved the same.
6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused were
recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the case of
prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. Accused Sher Khan
additionally took a plea that the deceased Sehaj Pal Singh was having illicit
relations with Kaki wife of Pawan Sharma and had been visiting the house of
Kamaljit Sharma in the absence of other members of the family and that on
the day of occurrence, when Sehaj Pal Singh had gone to meet Kaki
Kaki,, he was
caught in a compromising position by Kamaljit Sharma, Pawan Sharma and
Ashok Sharma and upon seeing them, the
he deceased tried to escape while
putting on his 'nikkar',, but was chased by Kamaljit Singh and his sons and
was inflicted injuries with gandassa and sua and done to death. He further
stated that the deceased had also snatched arms from Kamaljit Sharma,
Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma and had caused injuries to them and that
upon hearing their noises, he (accused) had intervened to separate them and
in that process, he (accused) also sustained some injuries at the hands of
Kamaljit Singh and his sons. Accused Nazar Khan also raised an additional
plea to the effect that he has been falsely implicated as he was having a
dispute with Kamaljit Sharma regarding a plot.
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
7. In
n their defence,
defence the accused examined DW
DW-1 Dr. Prem Pal Gili, who stated
that on 23.08.2001, he was posted at CHC, Payal and on the said day, he had
medico legally examined Kehar Mohd. son
on of Gehna
Gehna. He proved the medico
legal report in respect of Kehar Mohd. as DW1/A
DW1/A, wherein he described the
injuries found on his person.
8. The learned trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, held that
the prosecution had fully established its case and consequently, held all the
accused guilty for the charges framed against them and sentenced them as
under:
Sr. Name of the Offence Imprisonment Fine In default
No. convict
1. Buta Khan 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 years
326/149 IPC 3 years Rs.2000/- 9 months
325/149 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- 6 months
323/149 IPC 6 months - -
148 IPC 1 year - -
2. Gehna 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 years
Khan (since 326/149 IPC 3 years Rs.2000/- 9 months
expired) 325/149 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- 6 months
323/149 IPC 6 months - -
148 IPC 1 year - -
3. Bali Khan 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 years
326/149 IPC 3 years Rs.2000/- 9 months
325/149 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- 6 months
323 IPC 6 months - -
323/149 IPC 6 months - -
148 IPC 1 year - -
4. Sher Khan 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 years
326/149 IPC 3 years Rs.2000/- 9 months
325/149 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- 6 months
323 IPC 6 months - -
323/149 IPC 6 months - -
148 IPC 1 year - -
5. Nazar Khan 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- 3 years
326 IPC 3 years Rs.2000/- 9 months
325 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- 6 months
323 IPC 6 months - -
323/149 IPC 6 months - -
148 IPC 1 year - -
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
9. It may here be mentioned that out of the aforesaid five accused, who had been
convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, one of them namely Gehna Khan
has expired and proceedings qua him already stand abated vide order dated
20.02.2025 passed in CRA-D-62-DB-2005..
10. Learned counsel for the accused,
accused while assailing their conviction
conviction, broadly
made the following submissions:
submissions
(i) t
that it is a case where the accused have been falsely
implicated and that the genesis of occurrence has been
suppressed It has been submitted that as a matter of fact the
suppressed.
deceased was having illicit relations with Kaki wife of Pawan
Kumar and on one of the visits of the deceased to the house
of Kaki, he was caught red-handed
red handed by Kamaljit Sharma and
his sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma and the deceased
after putting on his 'nikkar'' tried to run away but was chased
by Kamaljit & his sons and was inflicted injuries and done to
death. It has been submitted that the deceased at tthe time of
death was wearing only a 'nikkar' which would go a long
way to prove the defence plea set up by accused Sher Khan.
(ii) that the presence of the witnesses Ashok Sharma and Pawan
Sharma is highly doubtful inasmuch as although they claimed
to have
hav been injured in the occurrence but PW-7 Dr.
U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana
Ludhiana, who
proved their MLRs, stated that while he had examined the
aforesaid two injured on 23.08.2001 but the MLRs were
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 10 )
recorded on 29.08.2001, which would clearly show that the
MLRs in question are a result of manipulations particularly
when the Doctor i.e. PW-7
PW himself stated that when the
MLRs were prepared, the injured i.e. Pawan Kumar and
Ashok Kumar were not present. It has been submitted that
under these circumstances it remains unexplained as to how
the Doctor was able to record the injuries meticulously in
MLRs as have been recorded. Learned counsel, thus,
submitted under these
t circumstances when presence of eye
witness is doubtful, the impugned judgment could not sustain
and is liable to be set aside.
(iii) that admittedly it is a case where the deceased was found to
have sustained one injury only, which is attributed to
a
appellant - Buta Khan, as is the case of prosecution and there
is nothing on record to show that the other accused nursed
any common intention or had any common object to kill
Sehaj Pal Singh,, therefore, the conviction of the other
accused with regard to offence under Section 302 IPC, in any
case, is not sustainable.
11. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to
the consistent testimonies of 4 eye-witnesses
eye witnesses including stamped witnesses i.e.
Kamaljit Sharma, Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma, there is no room to
doubt the case of prosecution in any manner and that mi
minor
nor discrepancies
would not cause any dent in the case of prosecution.
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 11 )
12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner while pressing the revision
petition submitted that the sentence imposed upon the accused is on the lesser
side and that the same needs to be enhanced.
13. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with
the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case.
14. Since it is the specific case of the complainant that on 23.08.2001, the
accused had inflicted injuries to his son Sehaj Pal Singh (deceased), it is
apposite to first of all examine the medical record pertaining to the injuries
sustained by the deceased and
and the cause of death. The prosecution has
examined PW-6
PW Dr. G.P. Mangla,, who had conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of Sehaj Pal Singh on 24.08.2001. He proved
the post-mortem
mortem report as Ex.PD
Ex.P and described the injuries found on the dead
de
body as under:
"1. Stitched wound 4" in length slightly curved on the top of the head placed
obliquely on the mid line.
On exploration of skull there was big hematoma present underneath the
scalp on the occipital and both the parietal
pari tal region. There was fracture of both the
parietal bone and right side of the occipital bone. There was sub dural hematoma
present in the parieto occipital region and cranial cavity contain blood and brain
mattle was contused."
contused.
15. PW-1 Dr. G.P.Mangla opined
ned that cause of death in this case was due to
hemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury which was sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature and was antemortem in nature. PW-1
1 Dr.
G.P.Mangla was briefly cross-examined
examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing
substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross
cross-examination
examination so as
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 12 )
to either doubt the veracity or his opinion. As such, we find that the medical
evidence led by the prosecution is in tune with the ocular version
version.
16. In the present case, we find that apart from the complainant, who has narrated
in detail the manner of incident, having categorically stated that all the
accused were armed with sua and gandassas and Buta Khan gave a blow with
gandassa on the back of head of Sehaj Pal Singh, the case of the prosecution
is supported by the testimonies of PW-2
PW 2 Kamaljit Sharma, PW
PW-4
4 Pawan
Kumar and PW-5
PW 5 Ashok Kumar, who had been attracted to the spot upon
alarm having been raised. The said witnesses are not just independent
witnesses, but are stamped witnesses as well as they ha
had also been inflicted
injuries by the accused. The prosecution has led medical evidence in the
shape of PW-7
PW Dr. U.S.Sooch to prove the injuries found on the person of
PW-22 Kamaljit Sharma, PW-4
PW 4 Pawan Kumar and PW
PW-5 Ashok Kumar. PW-
PW
7 Dr. U.S.Sooch, who had medico legally examined the three injured namely
Kamaljit Sharma, Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma on 23.08.2001, proved
their
eir respective MLRs as Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH and described the injuries
found on their
the person as under:
Kamaljit Sharma:
Sharma
1. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the back and upper
part of the left forearm placed obliquely with marked swelling. X
X-ray
ray
was advised.
2. Stabbed wound 1" x 1/2" x query depth with lacerated margin placed
horizontally on the mind axillary line on the left lower part of the
chest with fresh bleeding. X-ray
ray was advised for the chest and
abdomen and injury was referred to su
surgical
rgical specialist for expert
opinion.
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 13 )
3. Two abrasions 1" x 1/8" and 3/4th" apart placed obliquely on the front
of left shoulder
Pawan Kumar:
Kumar
1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x1/4" x bone deep vertical on the occipital area
with fresh bleeding. X ray was advised.
2. Abrasion 5" x 1/2" horizontal on the left infraccapular area with ooz.
ooz
3. Complained of pain just above the right knee.
Ashok Kumar:
Kumar
1. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x bone deep 1" inside. The hair
lineacrossing the mid line on the both frontal and parietal area with
perfused bleeding. X-ray
ray was advised.
2. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" on the medial side of right knee.
17. PW-7 Dr. U.S.Sooch stated that while injuries No.2 & 3 on the person of
Kamaljit Sharma were simple injuries, injury No.1 was declared as grievous
injury upon receipt of report of radiologist. In respect of injuries found on the
person of Pawan Kumar, PW-7
PW 7 Dr. U.S.Sooch stated that all were simple in
nature. PW-7
PW Dr. U.S.Sooch further
er stated that while injur
injury No.2 on the
person of Ashok Kumar was simple injur
injury,, injury No.1 was declared as
grievous injury upon receipt of report of radiologist.
18. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, vehemently assailed the
presence of aforesaid three witnesses i.e. PW
PW-2
2 Kamaljit Sharma, PW-4
PW
Pawan Kumar and PW-5
PW 5 Ashok Kumar at the spot while submitting that PW-
PW
7 Dr. U.S.Sooch, who had allegedly exam
examined
ined them categorically stated
during the course of cross-examination
cross examination that the MLRs in respect of Pawan
Kumar (Ex.PG
Ex.PG) and Ashok Kumar (Ex.PH
PH) were prepared on 29.08.2001,
when the injured were not present. Learned counsel submitted that given the
fact thatt the occurrence had taken place on 23.08.2001 and the said MLRs
came to be recorded after about 5/6 days and that too in the absence of the
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 14 )
injured,, it is apparent that the said medical evidence is manoeuvred and under
these circumstances their presence att the spot is rendered doubtful.
19. There is no dispute as regards the date of occurrence which is 23.08.2001.
MLRs in respect of Pawan Kumar (Ex.PG) and Ashok Kumar (Ex.PH) came
to be recorded on 29.08.2001. PW-77 Dr. U.S.Sooch categorically admitted
that when the said MLRs were prepared, injured Pawan Kumar and Ashok
Kumar were not present. Under these circumstances, it will not be safe to
rely upon the said MLRs. In any case, the factum of a witness having been
injured is just
ju an additional factor which would render some kind of
assurance regarding his presence at the spot, but in case his testimony is
found to be credible then even in the absence of medical evidence regarding
his own injuries,
injuries, the same can be considered.
20. case as far as the 3rd injured witness i.e. PW
In any case, PW-2 Kamaljit Sharma is
concerned, the medical evidence led by the prosecution as regards his injuries
does not suffer from any infirmity. PW-22 Kamaljit Sharma was examined on
23.8.2001 at 10.45 AM. There is no inconsistency or any discrepancy as
regards the date or time of medical examination of Kamaljit Sharma so as to
cast any doubt as regards the authenticity of the MLR (Ex.PF). As far as
MLRs pertaining to other two injured namely Pawan Kumar and Ashok
Kumar are concerned, it appears that although they were examined by the
Doctor concerned on 23.08.2001, but the MLRs came to be formally recorded
on 29.08.2001 pursuant to a request made by the police. The relevant
extracts from the examination-in-chief
chief of PW
PW-7 are reproduced herein under:
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 15 )
"On
On the same day at 11.15 PM, I also examined Pawan Kumar
son of Kamaljit aged 27 years r/o VPO Dhamot, but the MLR was
prepared on 29.08.2001 on police request since the patient had no
reference slip
s from PHC Payal on 23.08.2001
23.08.2001.........
........ On 23.08.2001 at 11.30 PM, I also medico legally
examined Ashok Kumar son of Kamaljit aged 24 years r/o VPO
Dhamot. The MLR was prepared on the police request on 29.08.2001
since the patient had no reference slip with him on 23.08.2001."
21. Thus, even if there is some doubt as regards the admissibility of the medical
evidence pertaining to Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar, the medical
evidence pertaining to Kamaljit Sharma
Sharma does not suffer from any doubt so as
to make it inadmissible. The fact that Kamaljit Sharma, who is an eye-
eye
witness, sustained injuries,
injuries, which have been found to be duly proved, lends
absolute assurance as regards his presence at the spot. He has narrated the
occurrence identically as stated by PW-1
PW Sharanjit Singh (complainant) and
has fully corroborated his statement.
22. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants pressed
upon their contention that in fact it is a case where deceased had been
inflicted injuries on account of his having illicit affair with Kaki wife of
Pawan Sharma and when he was caught red
red-handed,
ded, he was given beatings
by Kamaljit Sharma and his sons Pawan Sharma and Ashok Sharma leading
to his death, as is also the stand taken by one of the appellants namely Sher
Khan. Learned counsel while hammering forth his aforesaid contention
submitted that
hat since
sinc it is only a 'nikkar' which was handed over to Constable
Gurcharan Singh by the Doctor concerned after condu
conducting post-mortem
mortem
examination on the dead body of Sehaj Pal Singh
Singh,, the same is in tune with the
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 16 )
plea set up by accused Sher Khan, wherein he stated that the deceased
deceased,, having
been caught in compromising position ran away from the spot immediately
by putting on his 'nikkar' only. Learned counsel also referred to the
testimony of PW-6
PW Dr. G.P.Mangla,, who had conducted the post
post-mortem
rtem
examination on the dead body and who categorically stated that only a
'nikkar' was there on the dead body.
23. However, this Court finds that it is not the case that the deceased was found
to be wearing 'nikkar' only at the time of his death. A perusal
al of the
statement of the Investigating Officer namely PW
PW-10
10 Inspector Charan Singh
shows that on 24.08.2001, Sharanjit Singh (complainant) produced before
him a pant and a parna of Sehaj Pal Singh, which were stained with blood
and which were taken into possession by the police. PW
PW-1
1 Sharanjit Singh
(complainant) also stated that immediately after the occurrence the deceased
had been taken to hospital in injured condition, but he could not survive and
died during
ring night. He stated that on the next day, he got his statement
recorded and thereafter he alongwith police reached the hospital and he had
produced the blood stained clothes of
o his son (deceased) i.e. pant and a parna
before the police, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PB.. The said clothes were sent to the FSL for examination alongwith
weapons recovered pursuant to the disclosure statements of the
accused/appellants and the same were found to be stained with human blood
as per report
rt Ex.PX.
Ex. As such, the contention on behalf of the appellants that
the deceased was only wearing a 'nikkar' and had ran away from the house of
Kamaljit Sharma is not borne out from evidence. Rather, it is evident that the
blood stained clothes i.e. pant and parna were produced before the police by
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 17 )
the complainant, which upon chemical examination were found to be stained
with human blood. There is nothing
nothing on record to substantiate the plea of
alleged illicit relations of the deceased with Kaki wife of Pawan Sharma.
Consequently, stand of the accused that it is not the accused, but Kamaljit
Sharma and his sons, who had killed the deceased does not hold aany
ny ground.
The plea of one of the accused in statement recorded under provisions of
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased upon being attacked by Kamaljit
Sharma and his two sons managed to snatch weapons from them and that he
(deceased) inflicted injuries to Kamaljit Sharma and his sons does not seem
plausible inasmuch the deceased being unarmed would hardly have been in a
position to snatch a weapon from three assailants and even inflict injuries to
them. The said plea is apparently implausible and cannot be accepted.
24. The testimonies of PW-1
PW Sharanjit
njit Singh (complainant) and the three eye-
eye
witnesses/injured i.e. PW-2
PW 2 Kamaljit Sharma, PW
PW-4 Pawan Kumar and PW-5
PW
Ashok Kumar are consistent on all material facts of the case. They narrated
the incident identically. PW-2
PW 2 Kamaljit Sharma is a stamped witness. PW-2
PW
Kamaljit Sharma and his two sons i.e. PW-
PW-4 Pawan Kumar and PW-5
5 Ashok
Kumar are neither relatives nor friends of deceased or complainant and are in
fact independent witnesses.
witnesses. Nor do they have any axe to grind against the
accused so as to have deposed falsely. The weapons, which were recovered at
the instance of the accused/appellants i.e. su
sua from Bali Khan and gandassa
gandass
from each of the accused Sher Khan, Buta Khan and Nazar Khan were found
to be smeared with blood. Thus, even if the factum of existence of injuries on
the person of Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar is not taken into account, the
accused would still be liable in respect of simple as well as grievous injuries
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 18 )
found on the person of Kamaljit Singh apart from their liability with respect
to murder of Sehal Pal Singh.
25. It may heree be mentioned that although the accused examined DW
DW-1
1 Dr.
Prem Pal Gili, who stated that he had medically examined Kehar Mohd. son
of Gehna on 23.8.2001 and had found some injuries, but the presence of
Kehar Mohd. at the spot is not borne out from any doc
document
ument or evidence and
nor said Kehar Mohd. stepped into the witness box
box. Ass such, the medical
evidence pertaining to injuries on Kehar Mohd. is rendered irrelevant.
26. As regards the contention of the appellants that it is a case of a single injury
only on the person of the deceased, which is attributed to only one accused
and that the other accused cannot be held responsible for the same
same,, this Court
finds that it is a case where the four out of the five accused namely Buta
Khan, Bali Khan, Nazar Khan and Sher Khan were duly armed with sharp
edged weapons and pursuant to a 'lalkara'' raised by Gehna Khan
Khan,, they not
only killed the deceased Sehaj Pal Singh but also caused injuries to other
persons as well who tried to intervene.. The manner and conduct of accused
shows that they had gathered at the spot with a pre
pre-determined
determined object of
killing Sehaj Pal Singh.
Singh Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Mahto & Anr.
Vs. State of Jharkhand 2006(10) SCC 432,, held as under :
" ..... ...... ...... ....... There is a distinction between the common
object and common intention. The common object need not require
prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack,
and an unlawful object can develop after the assembly gathered
before the commission of the crime at the spot itself
itself. There need
not be prior meeting of the mind. It would be enough that the
members of the assembly which constitutes five or more persons,
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 19 )
have common object and that they acted as an assembly to achieve
that object. In substance, Section 149 makes every member of the
common unlawful assembly responsible as a member for the act of
each and all merely because he is a member of the unlawful
assembly with common object to be achieved by su
such an unlawful
assembly. At the same time, one has to keep in mind that mere
presence in the unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable
unless there was a common object and that is shared by that person.
The common object has to be found and can be ga
gathered from the
facts and circumstances of each case."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In the present case, the facts suggest that the accused had initially nursed a
common object to inflict injuries to Sehaj P
Pal Singh only, but when they were
obstructed in prosecution
prosec of said object by Kamalj
Kamaljit Sharma and his sons they
caused injuries to the said interveners as well in order to give effect to their
common object.
object. It appears that such like intention or object was formed at the
spot. Under these circumstances, even if only one of the assailants is
attributed the fatal injury to the deceased, the other accused would still be
vicariously liable having done acts in prosecution of a common object and
thus cannot escape from their liability as regards the murder of Sehaj Pal
Singh and also as regards causing injuries to Kamaljit Sharma, who
alongwith his sons had tried to intervene so as to save Sehaj Pal Singh.. The
aforesaid contention as regards there being no vicarious liability is thus found
to be devoid of merits and cannot be accepted.
28. No other argument is raised before this Court. Consequently, we do not find
any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the
same are hereby affirmed. The appeals filed on behalf of the
CRA-D-31-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-62-DB-2005
2005 (O&M);
CRA-D-34-DB-2005
2005 (O&M) &
CRR-484-2005
2005 (O&M)
( 20 )
accused/appellants challenging their conviction are sans merit and are hereby
dismissed.
29. As far as criminal revision filed by Manjit Kaur - wife of the complainant is
concerned, we find that the accused have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for
for life on account of offence under Section 302 IPC and have
also been imposed sentence of imprisonment for varying terms in respect of
other offences.
offences It is not one of those rarest of rare case which would justify a
sentence stringer than life imprisonment.
imprisonment. The ca
case
se in hand does not warrant
imposition of death penalty. Consequently, the criminal revision also
deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
GILL)
JUDGE
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
05.03.2025 JUDGE
Vimal
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
