Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudha vs State Ofpb.Etc on 10 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
CRA-D-270-DB-2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-270-DB-2005
Date of Decision: 10.03.2025
SUDHA SINGH @ SIDHU
... Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2005 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Amritsar.
2. The FIR was registered on 17.02.2003, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar is
dated 05.02.2005, the appeal was filed on 28.03.2005 and the matter is being
taken up for hearing now i.e. after a period of 22 years from the date of
registration of the FIR.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Dilbagh Singh alias Bagha
deceased had illicit relations with the daughter-in-law of the brother of the
accused and on that ground, he was nourishing a grudge against him. On
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
17.02.2003. he, alongwith his father Chanchal Singh, PW5 was coming back
to his house in a rickshaw after loading a bag of feed from the house of
Gurmit Singh Dodhi, resident of Panjwar. At that time, he was pedalling the
rickshaw whereas Chanchal Singh (complainant) was sitting on the back seat
thereof. When at about 8.00 am, they reached in front of the place of Baba
Balmik, the accused came there from the back side holding a Ghotna (round
wooden bat meant for grinding salt etc) and gave a blow with the same on the
head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down with his face
downward. Thereafter the accused gave two other blows on his forehead. The
complainant raised an alarm upon which the accused escaped from that place
with the ghotna. In the meanwhile, on hearing the alarm Sukha Singh and
Kartar Singh, PW6 also came to the spot. As a result of the injuries, the
deceased died at the spot itself. After leaving Kartar Singh by the side of the
dead body and accompanied by Sukha Singh, the complainant was
proceeding to the police station to lodge the report, when Piara Singh, SHO
(PW7) alongwith other police officials, met them on the G.T. Road near the
turning of Panjwar. At that place, the complainant made his statement, Ex.PH
about this occurrence before the SHO, who after making his endorsement,
Ex.PH/2 upon the same, sent it to the police station on the basis of which FIR
EX.PH/3 under section 302 IPC was recorded against the accused. The SHO
accompanied by the complainant and others went to the spot and after
inspecting the same, prepared a rough site plan, Ex. PI with correct marginal
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
notes. He collected the bloodstained earth from the place which was put in a
sealed plastic box. The box was converted into a parcel and was sealed by the
SHO with his seal, PS. The sealed parcel was taken into possession vide
memo, Ex. PJ. One blood stained parna, Ex. P2 and one bloodstained chadhar
Ex.P1 were recovered from the spot. Those were converted into a parcel
which was sealed by the SHO with his seal, PS and was taken into possession
vide memo, Ex. PK. The rickshaw loaded with a bag of feed was also found
at the spot and those were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PL. The
SHO prepared the inquest report, Ex.PB in respect of the dead body and sent
the same for post mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran,
alongwith his application, Ex.PA through Jasbir Singh, PW2 and Harbans Lal,
constable.The autopsy on the dead body was performed on the same day by
Dr. Dilbagh Singh, PW1, who found two ante-mortem injuries on the same
and gave his opinion that the cause of death was due to those injuries which
was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. After the
post-mortem examination, the trousers Ex.P3, shirt Ex.P.4 and vest Ex.P5,
found on the dead body, were produced before the SHO by Jasbir Singh, LC
and the same were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PM. On coming
back to the police station, the SHO deposited the case property with Kanoj
Kumar, MHC, PW8.
4. On 23.02.2003, the SHO, alongwith other police officials and the
complainant, was present at Bus Stand, Khekhardin. At that place, the
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
accused was identified by the complainant and was arrested. He was produced
before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class who remanded him to police custody
till 28.02.2003. On 26.02.2003, the SHO interrogated the accused in the
presence of Arjan Singh ASI and Shamsher Singh, Constable upon which he
made a disclosure statement, Ex. PN that he had kept concealed a ghotna in
the quilts lying in his residential house about which he had the knowledge and
could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got
recovered ghotna Ex.P6 from the said place which was converted into a
parcel and was sealed by the SHO with his seal, PS. The sealed parcel was
taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PO. The SHO also prepared the rough
site plan. Ex.PP of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes and on
coming back to the police station, deposited the sealed parcel in the same
condition with the MHC. All the above-said sealed parcels were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh on 04.03.2003 through,
Sukhwinder Raj, constable, PW9 and were delivered at that place with seals
intact. After examination, it was reported by the Deputy Director of that
laboratory, vide his report, Ex.PS, that the same were stained with human
blood of group 'B'.
5. After the completion of investigation, the challan was submitted
before the JMIC, Tarn Taran, who committed the same for the trial of the
accused, charges came to be framed under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not
guilty and claimed Trial.
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution,
examined Dr. Dilbagh Singh, PW1, Jasbir Singh, LC, PW2, Swaran Singh,
constable, PW3, Rishi Ram, draftsman, PW4, Chanchal Singh, complainant,
PW5, Kartar Singh, PW6, Piara Singh, SI, PW7, Manoj Kumar, MHC, PW8
and Sukhwinder Raj, constable PW9 and tendered in evidence the report of
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PS.
7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. All the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to
him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all the evidence
pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. He was called upon to
enter his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.
8. Based on the evidence led, the accused/appellant came to be
convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide
judgment and order of sentence dated 05.02.2005 as under:-
Offence Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of
under Section payment of fine
302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5000/- RI for 02 years
9. It is the aforementioned judgment, which is under challenge, in
the present appeal.
10. The learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant contends
that the complainant Chanchal Singh (PW5) and Kartar Singh (PW6) are
close relatives of the deceased. Their testimony cannot be accepted and relied
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
upon for conviction without corroboration which is absent in the present case.
The medical evidence is totally contrary to the ocular account which would
go to show that the complainant/Chanchal Singh did not witness the
occurrence. The motive for the occurrence has also been not established. He
therefore, contends that the present appeal be allowed and the
accused/appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
11. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that mere
relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a
ground to disbelieve them. It does not stand to reason that they would falsely
implicate the accused and exonerate the actual assailant. Even otherwise,
there was sufficient corroboration of the statements of PW5-Chanchal Singh
and PW6-Kartar Singh inasmuch as the recovery of a bloodstained Ghotna
came to be effected at the instance of the accused and it was found that the
bloodstains were of Blood Group 'B' which belongs to the deceased. The
medical evidence was broadly in consonance with the ocular account and not
so contrary so as to completely discount the presence of the complainant at
the spot. As it was a case of eye version account, the motive had little
relevance. He, thus contends that the present appeal was liable to be
dismissed.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record.
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
13. Admittedly, Chanchal Singh, complainant, PW5 is the father of
the deceased. The other witness examined by the prosecution namely, Kartar
Singh, PW6 has stated that the complainant is his brother. Thus, both these
witnesses are closely related to the deceased. But, their statements are not be
discarded or doubted merely on account of that relationship. It is settled law
that the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are
related. However, in such like cases a duty is cast upon the court to scrutinize
the statements of related witnesses with care and caution. At the same time it
cannot be last sight of that relations are highly unlikely to conceal the actual
culprits and allegations against others. Thus, statements of these two
witnesses can be relied upon and can be made the basis of the conviction of
the accused, if on careful scrutiny those are found to be trust-worthy and
reliable.
14. Dr. Dilbagh Singh (PW1) conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Dilbagh Singh and found the following ante
mortem injuries-
i) A lacerated wound of 5.5 x 2.5 cms was present on the
right side of forehead. 1 cm above the mid point of right supra
orbital region and 1.3 cm from the mid point of forehead. On
dissection the bone was found fracture into two pieces and
underlying duramatter and brain was lacerated.
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
ii) A lacerated wound 2.5 x 1.5 cm was present on left side of
forehead, 3.5 cm above the medial angle of left eye and half
cms from the mid point of forehead.
On dissection-underlying bone was found fractured and dura
and brain were lacerated.
He opined that the cause of death was due to injury no.1 and 2
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He
testified that the correct carbon copy of the post mortem report is Ex.PD and
that of the pictorial diagram regarding the receipt of the injuries is Ex.PD/1.
15. The prosecution story in the Court has been unfolded by
Chanchal Singh, complainant (PW5). He deposed in detail about how the
occurrence took place. He stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8.00
am his son Dilbagh Singh deceased was pulling the rickshaw and he was
sitting on the seat. They were coming to their house from the house of Gurmit
Singh Dodhi after loading a bag of feed from his house. When they reached
near Baba Balmik Mandir, the accused came there from the back side and
gave a blow with the wooden Ghotna on the backside of Dilbagh Singh which
hit on his head, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Then, the
accused gave another blow on his forehead. He raised an alarm and in the
meantime, Sukha Singh and Kartar Singh (PW6) came to the spot from their
houses situated nearby and witnessed the occurrence. Dilbagh Singh died at
the spot. After leaving Kartar Singh at the spot to guard the dead body, he
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
alongwith Sukha Singh stated for the police station and the police met them in
the area of Panjwar and he made statement, Ex.PH before the police Piara
Singh, SI has made statement to the effect that after recording statement,
Ex.PH. he made endorsement Ex.PH/2 on that on the basis of which FIR
Ex.PH/3 was recorded. The reason of this witness is clear and cogent as to
how the occurrence took place and in what manner the deceased was
assaulted. The medical evidence is totally in consonance with the ocular
account.
16. The statement of PW5-Chanchal Singh finds corroboration from
the statement of Kartar Singh, PW6, who rushed to the spot after hearing cries
of the complainant. He stated that he himself and Sukha Singh had seen the
accused running away from the place of occurrence with the Ghotna in his
hands and at that time, Dilbagh Singh was lying dead and the complainant
was present at that place. The complainant told them that the accused had
given a blow with the Ghotna on the person of Dilbagh Singh and had
thereafter started running away from that place. The statement made by this
witness is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Though, he did not
witness the occurrence but he had seen the accused running away from the
spot with a Ghotna in his hand and at that very time, he was told by the
complainant that the blow with Ghotna was given by the accused to his son,
resulting in his death. In the context of 'res gestae' evidence, the Hon'ble
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
Supreme Court in Veerendra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 AIR
Supreme Court 2396, has held as under:-
"10. It is the further contention on behalf of the appellant that
though, PW-14 testified that the finger nail injuries were seen on
the right cheek of the appellant, his MLC would indicate finger nail
injuries only on the left side of the face and neck. At any rate, no
reliance should have been given on that issue as the appellant was
in the custody of the police even before his formal arrest, as spoken
by PW-4. It was also contended that the date of birth of the victim
was not proved by producing the school records. Furthermore, it
was contended that the conclusion that the deceased was lastly
seen in the company of the accused was arrived at relying on the
oral testimonies of PW2 and PW-4 without proper appreciation of
various relevant aspects. According to the appellant neither PW-2
nor PW-4 had informed about the same to the police at the first
instance, i.e., at the time of lodging complaint regarding missing of
the victim. The non-examination of one Rakesh who, according to
the prosecution, joined PW-4 and the appellant for drinking during
that night and that of Sri Ganesh, the father of the deceased, who
was an attesting witness to certain mahazars for the recoveries and
seizures, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In regard to the
testimony of PW-12 that he had seen the appellant coming out of
the bada of Jagan Sindhi, in the night of 19.09.2014 at about 09:00
pm, it is submitted that it ought not to have been taken as a link in
the chain of circumstances, as his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. was taken belatedly. May be as an alternative contention it
is contended that PW-12 is a chance witness and his testimony is
not creditworthy.
**** ***** *****
36. The evidence of PW-12 was actually taken as res gestae under
section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the High Court. In
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
Sukhar v. State of UP [(1999) 9 SCC 507] this court explained the
said provision. It was held therein that the statement sought to be
admitted, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made
contemporaneously with the acts. Thus, it is evident that the
essence of the doctrine of res gestae is that a fact which, though not
in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of
the same transaction" that it becomes relevant by itself. A conduct
of the accused after the incident may become admissible under
Section 6 of the Evidence Act, though not in issue, if it is so
connected with the fact in issue."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. The prosecution has produced other corroborative evidence also.
The same consists of the recovery of bloodstained earth from the place of
occurrence and the recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of
the accused. It was stated by Piara Singh, SI, PW7 that after he went to the
spot, he lifted bloodstained earth from that place which was converted into a
parcel and sealed the same with his seal, PS. He took that into possession vide
memo. Ex. PJ and the same was deposited by him with the MHC. He also
stated that after the post mortem examination, the trousers Ex.P3, shirt Ex.P4,
vest Ex.P-5 found on the dead body were produced before him by Jasbir
Singh LC and he converted those into a parcel and sealed the same with his
seal. That sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM and was
also deposited with the MHC. He also deposed that on 26.02.2003 he
interrogated the accused upon which he made disclosure statement that he had
kept concealed one Ghotna lying in his residential house and offered to get
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033423-DB
the same recovered. In pursuance of that disclosure, the accused got
recovered one ghotna Ex.P6. He converted the same into a that parcel and
sealed/with his seal, P.S. The sealed parcel was taken into possession vide
memo PO. The parcels containing ghotna and wearing apparels of the
deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh.
After examination, it was reported by the Deputy Director of that Laboratory
that the shirt vest, trousers and ghotna were stained with human blood of
group'A'. The accused got recovered the ghotna and the same was found to be
stained with blood with which the wearing apparels, found on the dead body,
were stained. It was the blood of the deceased which was found on the
ghotna. This corroborative evidence gives further credence to the statements
of Chanchal Singh, complainant (PW-5) and Kartar Singh (PW6).
18. The cumulative effect of the above discussion establishes beyond
a shadow of doubt that it was the accused/appellant alone who committed the
offence in question.
19. Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same
stands dismissed. The accused/appellant is directed to surrender before the
Trial Court forthwith.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
JUDGE JUDGE
10.03.2025
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
12 of 12
