Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(102) CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
Reserved on: 19.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 24.03.2025
Amar Singh .... Appellant
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21/24.01.2004 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.
2. The instant FIR came to be registered on 02.03.2000. The
accused-appellant came to be convicted vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 21/24.01.2004. The present appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence was filed on 01.03.2004. The
matter has come up for final hearing now after 25 years of the registration of
the FIR.
1 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
3. The brief facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that
the accused were residents of village Bhuna. Deceased Surender Kumar was
the brother-in-law (wife's brother) of PW-10 Ram Pal-complainant. He was
employed in Sugar Mill Bhuna. PW-10/Ram Pal was married with Nirmla
Devi daughter of Dolat Ram of village Dholu, whereas his sister-in-law
(wife's sister) was married with Ram Partap son of Surja Ram, resident of
Abohar. In the year 1997, Ram Partap purchased land in village Bosti and
started residing in village Bosti. Om Parkash was the brother of accused
Amar Singh and Hanuman. Om Parkash used to go to the house of Ram
Partap at village Bosti with Surender. Om Parkash developed illicit relations
with Monika, the daughter of Ram Partap. Om Parkash was murdered by
Ram Partap due to this relationship in the year 1997. Jagdish, brother of
deceased Om Parkash got registered the case against Ram Partap, Guddi,
Monika, Surender and Geeta Devi, mother-in-law of PW-10 Ram Pal. Ram
Partap was convicted and the others were acquitted. Amar Singh and his
brothers were nursing a grudge with the complainant party due to this
reason.
4. On 01.03.2000, PW-10 Ram Pal alongwith his wife Nirmla had
come to village Dholu to his in-laws. On 02.03.2000 at about 7:45 AM, he
and his brother-in-law Surender started from village Dholu to Bhuna on a
cycle. Surender was to go to his duty at Sugar Mill, Bhuna and he (Ram Pal)
was to go to Hisar via Bhuna. At about 8:45 AM they reached near the gate
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
of the residential colony of the Bhuna Sugar Mill. Accused Amar Singh,
Hanuman and Sunil were found hiding themselves behind the wall of the
gate of the colony. They were previously known to PW-10 Ram Pal. On
seeing them, Hanuman raised a lalkara and exhorted to Amar Singh that
Surender enemy had come and he (Amar Singh) should fire a shot upon him.
Hanuman and Sunil caught hold of Ram Pal (PW-10) and Amar Singh took
out a country made pistol from the dub of his pant and fired two shots
aiming at Surender Kumar with an intention to kill him which hit on the
right side of his neck and right side of his temple. On receiving the fire arm
injuries, Surender fell on the road. Amar Singh armed with a pistol and
Hanuman and Sunil empty handed went away from the spot by saying that
they had eliminated their enemy Surender. After some time, Sultan resident
of Dholu came from the side of Bhuna in a jeep. He was got stopped and
Surender has taken in the jeep to Govt. Hospital, Bhuna where after 5/7
minutes Surender took his last breath.
5. Dr.R.C Goyal, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre,
Bhuna sent information in writing Ex.PB to the police station about the
arrival of Surender and his death. PW-14/Mihal Singh SI/SHO, Police
Station, Bhuna reached at the hospital alongwith other police officials where
PW-10 Ram Pal met him and he recorded his statement Ex.PI which was
signed by him in token of its correctness. The Investigating Officer sent this
statement to the police station vide his endorsement Ex.PI/1 for the
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
registration of the case to the police station. Then he inspected the dead body
and conducted inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest report Ex. PF.
He also recorded the statements of Hawa Singh and Ami Lal during
investigation proceedings. He handed over the dead body to Constable
Satish and Prem Singh alongwith Police request Ex.PE for getting the post-
mortem examination. Then he came to the place of occurrence alongwith
Ram Pal-complainant and got the place of occurrence photographed through
Sanjeev Kumar Photographer (PW-2). SI Mihal Singh also took into
possession blood stained earth, cycle roori, one empty cartridge, wads.
chadar, two pieces of lead into his possession after converting the same into
separate parcels vide recovery memos Ex.PM and Ex.PN which were
attested by Ram Pal and HC Chhellu Ram (PW-11). SI Mihal Singh also
prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PR. On
02.03.2000, Dr. Vinod Sharma, Medical Officer, General Hospital,
Fatehabad conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of
Surender and in his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock
due to fire arm injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and gave post-
mortem report Ex.PG. He handed over shirt Ex.P1, Sweater Ex.P2,
underwear Ex.P4, Banian Ex.P5 and bullet Ex.P6 to the police which were
sealed in separate parcel. These articles were taken of from the dead body of
Surender. Dr. Vinod Sharma (PW-6) has also put his initials on inquest
report Ex.PF.
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
6. Constables Satish and Prem Singh met SI Mihal Singh (PW-14)
at bus-stand Bhuna and handed over to him all the sealed parcels which were
taken into possession by SI Mihal Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PJ. On
returning to the police station, he deposited the case property with the MHC
in intact condition and further handed over investigation of this case of
Shingara Singh Inspector.
7. On 04.03.2000, Inspector Singara Singh (PW-12) went to Sugar
Mill, Bhuna where Krishan Lal Head Time Officer of Sugar Mill handed
over to him two photo copies showing the attendance of accused Amar
Singh and Hanuman in the attendance register of the Sugar Mill which were
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PO.
8. On 05.03.2000, Inspector Singara Singh (PW-12) alongwith SI
Sher Singh and other police officials raided the house of accused Sunil but
he was not found there. When Inspector Singara Singh was returning from
the Sugar Mill to the police station and reached at T-point Bhuna, PW Jai
Chand (PW-15) met him who made inquiry from the police about this case.
Meanwhile Raja Ram produced accused Sunil, Amar Singh and Hanuman
and they all were arrested.
9. On interrogation of accused Amar Singh, he suffered a
disclosure statement Ex. PP and in pursuance of the same he got recovered a
country made .12 bore pistol from the disclosed place. Shingara Singh
Inspector prepared the sketch of the pistol and thereafter, converted it into a
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PQ.
Inspector Shingara Singh also prepared site plan Ex.PQ/2 of the place of
recovery and on returning to the police station, the case property was
deposited with the MHC and accused were put in police lock up. The parcels
were sent to FSL Madhuban for analysis and the Director, F.S.L. vide his
report Ex.PL found human blood on all the clothes of the deceased. He
further vide report Ex.PL/1 found the country made pistol in working
condition. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the
accused in the Court.
10. On the basis of evidence collected by the police during the
course of investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence
punishable under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code by the
Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide order dated 07.06.2000 to
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Amar Singh
was also charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under section 25 of the
Arms Act vide order dated 19.12.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
11. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined as many
as fifteen witnesses. Subhash Chand Patwari Halqa, Bhuna who had visited
the spot and prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PA
appeared as PW-1. Sanjeev Kumar, photographer a formal witness who
proved negatives Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and developed prints Ex.P6 to Ex.P10
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
appeared as PW-2. Dr.R.C.Goyal who sent information in writing Ex.PB to
the police appeared as PW-3, Ram Mehar HC, a formal witness who
tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PC appeared as PW-4, Constable
Harbans Lal, a formal witness who tendered his affidavit Ex.PD appeared as
PW-5, Dr. Vinod Sharma who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of
Surender Kumar appeared as PW-6 and proved copy of PMR Ex.PG.
Constable Lila Ram, another formal witness who had delivered the copy of
the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate, S.P. and D.S.P. appeared as PW-7.
Prem Kumar Constable who carried statement Ex.Pl to the police station
appeared as PW-8. This witness has also deposed about the fact that he
alongwith Satish Kumar had taken the dead body to General Hospital,
Fatehabad and had got the post-mortem done, received parcels and handed
them over to SI Mihal Singh. Balbir Singh HC who had brought the FIR
register of the year 1997 and proved copy of FIR No.400 dated 19.12.1998
registered on the statement of Jagdish Chander son of Kanshi Ram appeared
as PW-9, Ram Pal complainant of the case appeared as PW-10. Chhelu Ram
HC, the then Moharrir Head Constable of Police station, Bhuna appeared as
PW-11 and proved formal FIR Ex.PH. He also proved the fact that all the
parcels handed over by the Investigating Officer remained intact as long as
far they remained in his custody. Singara Singh, Retired Inspector who had
partly investigated this case appeared as PW-12, Sultan Singh who took the
injured Surender Singh on his jeep to General Hospital appeared as PW-13.
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
Mihal Singh, Sub Inspector, the main Investigating Officer of the case
appeared as PW-14 and deposed about the various steps taken by him during
investigation of the case. Jai Chand in whose presence the accused were
produced by Raja Ram and Amar Singh made a disclosure statement
appeared as PW-15. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
12. When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Amar Singh pleaded
his innocence and stated that it was blind murder and he had been falsely
implicated in this case due to previous enmity. A similar stand was taken by
accused Hanuman and Sunil when they were examined under section 313
Cr.P.C.
13. In their defence evidence, the accused examined Balbir Singh,
Fire Station Officer as DW-1. He stated that on 03.03.2000 he was posted at
Fire Station Officer, Hisar and Ram Pal was working as a driver with the
Fire Brigade. He moved an application for 3rd and 4th March, 2000 and
photo copy of the same was Ex.D1. Thereafter, the accused closed their
defence evidence.
14. Based on the evidence led, while Hanuman and Sunil were
acquitted whereby the accused-appellant/Amar Singh came to be convicted
and sentenced by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21/24.01.2004 as under:-
Offence U/S Sentence Fine In default of
payment of fine
302 IPC RI Imprisonment for Life Rs.5,000/- RI 06 months
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
25 of the Arms RI 03 years Rs.1,000/- RI 01 month
Act
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
15. The aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 21/24.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehabad is under challenge before this Court.
16. During the pendency of this appeal, the sentence of the
accused-appellant, namely, Amar Singh was suspended by this Court vide
order dated 08.12.2005.
17. The learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant contends
that the complainant-Ram Pal (PW-10) is an interested witness being a
brother-in-law of the deceased and his testimony cannot be accepted. There
is a significant delay in the registration of the FIR. The occurrence took
place between 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. on 02.03.2000. The statement was
made to the police at about 11:00 A.M. but the Special Report reached the
Illaqa Magistrate at 4.00 P.M. This delay is fatal to the prosecution case.
The presence of the complainant at the spot is doubtful. As per his version,
he had taken the deceased to the hospital. He, however, has admitted during
his cross-examination that his clothes were smeared with blood but the same
were not taken into possession by the police which belies his presence at the
spot. Further, there is a considerable variations between the medical
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
evidence and the ocular evidence. He, thus, contends that the impugned
judgment was liable to be set aside.
18. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the medical evidence was totally in consonance with the ocular account.
Merely because the complainant-Ram Pal (PW-10) was a relative of the
deceased does not make the prosecution case doubtful. It does not stand to
reason that the complainant would let go off the actual assailants and
inculpate the accused. Further, the report of the FSL establishes beyond
doubt that the country-made pistol Mark W-1 recovered from the accused
had been used to fire at the deceased and the fired cartridge case and lead
slug Marked C1 and BC/3 respectively have been fired from the said
weapon. He, thus, contends that the present appeal was liable to be
dismissed.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
20. PW-10/Ram Pal and other accused were known to each other
and occurrence took place in the morning hours. Therefore, there was no
difficulty for Ram Pal to identify the assailants. The statement of
PW-10/Ram Pal cannot be discarded merely on account of the fact that he
was the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the deceased. He has deposed
consistently as to how the occurrence took place. His presence at the spot is
quite natural and believable.
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
21. As regards the purported delay in the registration of the FIR and
the delivery of the Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate, it would be
pertinent to mention here that the occurrence took place at between 8:15
a.m. and 8:45 a.m. in the morning. The statement of the complainant was
recorded at 11:00 a.m. at Fatehabad. The Special Report reached the Illaqa
Magistrate at 4:00 P.M. Therefore, there is no delay in the registration of the
FIR. Moreover, this sole ground will not falsify the entire prosecution case
which is otherwise proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
22. As regards the presence of PW-10/Ram Pal being doubtful at
the time of alleged occurrence, apparently he was an employee at Fire
Brigade Hisar and was on emergency duty. An employee had to take station
leave prior to leaving the station of his place of posting. However
prosecution has not led any evidence to prove this fact that Ram Pal was on
Station leave on the date of occurrence. Be that as it may, merely because
this prosecution witness did not take station leave does not create any doubt
about his presence at the spot in view of the overwhelming evidence on
record. Even otherwise, this prosecution witness stated in his cross-
examination that he was on rest on 01.03.2000 and 02.03.2000.
23. The submission of the amicus curiae that PW-10/Ram Pal had
admitted in his cross-examination that his clothes were smeared with blood,
but the same were not taken into possession by the police which shows that
he was actually not present at the time of alleged occurrence cannot be
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
accepted. Any deficiency or irregularity in the investigation need not
necessarily lead to the rejection of the entire case of prosecution when it is
otherwise proved from the evidence on record.
24. As regards the argument that there is variation between the
medical evidence and ocular evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
titled as Rachpal Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2002 Cri. L.J.3540 has held that
the discrepancy regarding the nature of injury on the deceased as to whether
edges of the wound were averted or inverted is not fatal when there is
sufficient medical evidence to prove that the deceased died of gun shot
injuries. In the case in hand, Dr. Vinod Sharma/PW-6 has given details of the
injuries and he found a lacerated wound with inverted margins in front of the
right ear and another lacerated wound with inverted margins just above
injury No. 1. He also found injury No.3 as a lacerated wound oval in shape
with inverted margins and color of abrasion posterively placed on the lateral
side of the right side of neck and abrasion on the right knee and left knee and
opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to fire
injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. So, the ocular testimony of Ram Pal is fully
corroborated with the medical evidence. Therefore, minor variations do not
effect the prosecution version.
25. Further, in the case in hand, there is motive for the murder
which stands proved from the testimony of PW-10/Ram Pal. The same has
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
been corroborated by Balbir Singh/PW-9 who has produced the conviction
register which shows that Ram Partap was convicted under Section 302 IPC
for committing the murder of Om Parkash who was the real brother of
accused Amar Singh and Hanuman. The presence of PW-10/Ram Pal is not
doubtful as he was on weekly rest on dated 01.03.2000 and 02.03.2000. His
leaving the station with or without permission will not falsify the story of the
prosecution and he cannot be branded as unworthy of credence only because
of his relationship with the deceased.
26. Further Ex. PL/1 report of the F.S.L. establishes that country
made pistol mark W1 is a fire-arm as defined in the Arms Act 54 of 1959
and its firing mechanism was found in working order. The .12 bore fired
cartridge case and lead slug marked C1 and BC/3 respectively have been
fired from country made pistol W-1 and not from any other fire-arm even of
the same make. Similarly, wads spilts and slug contained in parcels could
form part of a .12 bore cartridge. The recovery of weapon is also well
proved from the testimony of the witnesses. The attendance register Ex.DC
also proves the presence of accused Amar Singh for the Ist meeting and his
absence in the second meeting. Even PW-12 Singara Singh has stated that
the M.D. Sugar Mill admitted the presence of Amar Singh in the morning
and his absence after that.
27. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we find that the
offence stands established beyond doubt. Therefore, finding no merit in the
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039727-DB
CRA-D-215-DB-2004 (O & M)
present appeal, the same stands dismissed. The accused-appellant is directed
to surrender before the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith to serve out his
remaining sentence.
28. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
JUDGE
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
24.03.2025 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
