Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 November, 2025
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Lisa Gill, Meenakshi I. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D No.936-DB of 2016(O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.11.2025
Parwinder Singh
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of instant criminal appeal, the appellant has laid
challenge to the judgment dated 01.09.2016 and order on sentence dated
03.09.2016, as handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka
(for short 'the trial Court'), whereby he has been held guilty for committing
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 IPC in the criminal
case arising out of FIR No.40 dated 07.03.2014 registered at Police Station
Sadar, Jalalabad, under Sections 302 & 307 IPC and has been awarded the
sentences as under:-
Offence Sentence
U/S 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and
pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of
default in payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years.
1 of 9
U/S 449 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and
pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of
default in payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years.
Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and
the fine amount has been directed to be paid to the family of the victims
under Section 357-A Cr.P.C.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating
in the filing of present appeal, are that on 07.03.2014, a telephonic message
was received at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad from Police Station Fazilka
regarding the admission of Kuldeep Kaur and Jasvir Kaur (here-in-after to
be referred as 'the victims') in Civil Hospital, Fazilka, due to their having
sustained injuries after being set on fire and their having been further
referred to Medical College, Faridkot. On receipt of this message, SI/SHO
Harinder Singh, along-with some other police officials, reached at G.G.S.
Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot and there, he obtained the opinion
of doctor on fitness of both the victims to make statement and the doctor
opined them (victims) to be fit for the same. Then, the above-said SI/SHO
moved an application to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Faridkot,
for deputing any Judicial Officer for recording the statements of afore-
named victims and he (CJM) deputed Sh. Satish Kumar, the then Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Faridkot, for this purpose and he (JMIC)
recorded their (victims') statements accordingly. Thereafter, the SI/SHO
also recorded the statement of victim Kuldeep Kaur (wife of Iqbal Singh)
who stated that prior to her marriage, she had been in relationship with the
2 of 9
appellant who had wanted to marry her. After her marriage, he came to her
matrimonial place and told her that she had deceived him and therefore, he
would not spare her and would teach her a lesson. She requested him not to
spoil her marital life and he returned to his village. On the previous day,
her mother Jasvir Kaur had brought her to her parental home and at about
9:00 P.M, the appellant came there and asked her to accompany him but
she again told him that she was married and then, he left their house while
threatening to kill her. At about 2.00 A.M, she and her mother were
sleeping on one cot and her brother and Gagandeep, the daughter of her
uncle, were sleeping on the other bed. The appellant entered their room and
caught hold of her arm and asked her to accompany him. However, when
she pushed him back, he took out a bottle of oil from the fold of his dress
and sprinkled the same on her and her mother and threw a burning match-
stick towards them and set them ablaze. She tried to catch hold of him but
he fled from the spot and on her raising an alarm, several persons gathered
there. This statement was forwarded to the Police Station where a formal
FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, both the victims
succumbed to their injuries and the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC had been added in the case. Further necessary investigation was, then,
carried out and on completion thereof, Challan/Final Police Report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C was prepared against the appellant (accused) and was
presented in the Court.
3. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned defence counsel and perusing the Challan/Final Police Report as
3 of 9
also the documents annexed therewith, learned trial Court framed the
charges against the appellant for committing the offences punishable under
Sections 449 and 302 IPC. He (appellant) pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant, the prosecution
examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses namely Angrej Singh as PW1,
Darshan Singh as PW2, Hardev Singh as PW3, Dara Singh as PW4,
Gagandeep as PW5, Dr. Vikas Gandhi as PW6, Draftsman Sanjeev Kumar
as PW7, Dr. Ashwani Kumar as PW8, SI Harinder Singh as PW9, Dr.
Gurdhian Singh as PW10 and Sh. Satish Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class as PW11. Thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor for the State closed
the prosecution evidence. Then, the appellant was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances/material, appearing
against him in the prosecution evidence led on record, wherein he pleaded
innocence and stated that he had falsely been implicated in the case and the
complainant in murder case, as registered against victim-Jasvir Kaur, had
been threatening to take revenge and had, therefore, committed the offence
in question. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. After
hearing learned counsel for the parties and appraising the record, learned
trial Court has held the appellant guilty and has awarded him punishment,
as already described in the opening para of this judgment.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the respondent-State in the instant appeal and have also
gone through the record carefully.
4 of 9
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
statement of victim-Jasvir Kaur, i.e Exhibit P11/G, as recorded by the
Magistrate (PW-11), cannot be read in evidence because she had disclosed
therein that her children had apprised her that the appellant had set them on
fire and thus, the same is to be termed as 'hearsay evidence' only. He has
also contended that PW1 Angrej Singh has deposed that on his inquiring,
his mother and sister had told him that the appellant had set them ablaze
and PW2 Darshan Singh and PW3 Hardev Singh have stated that they had
seen the appellant nervously coming out of the house of victims and PW4
Dara Singh has deposed that he had reached at the spot after being
informed by Chamkour Singh regarding the occurrence in question and
thus, it is explicit that none of these prosecution witnesses had seen the
appellant setting the victims on fire and hence, their testimonies do not help
the prosecution in connecting the appellant with alleged commission of
offence. His next contention is that PW6 Dr. Vikas Gandhi and PW8 Dr.
Ashwani Kumar, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead
bodies of Kuldeep Kaur and Jasvir Kaur respectively, have stated that the
bodies did not emit the smell of kerosene oil or petrol and these depositions
cast a shadow of doubt on the entire version of prosecution. Lastly, he has
contended that victim-Jasvir Kaur was involved in a murder case and the
complainant named Satpal in the said case, had killed the victims out of
revenge and he has urged that in view of the above-discussed facts and
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be allowed/accepted and the
appellant is entitled to his acquittal.
5 of 9
7. Per-contra, learned State counsel has argued that victim-
Kuldeep Kaur had been in relationship with the appellant before her
marriage and after her marriage, the appellant had been forcing her to
continue relationship with him and due to her refusal for the same, he
(appellant) started nurturing grudge against her and thus, there was a strong
motive for the commission of offence by him. He has further argued that in
her dying declaration Exhibit P11/C, victim Kuldeep Kaur (since deceased)
has specifically named the appellant as the culprit and this statement does
suffice to connect him (appellant) with the offence in this case and in such
circumstances, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. As regards the contention qua Exhibit P11/G, i.e. the dying
declaration of victim Jasvir Kaur (since deceased), being merely 'hearsay
evidence', though she had stated therein that her children had apprised her
about the appellant having set them ablaze but this fact, rather, goes to
show that she was truthful and had not concocted any story to falsely
involve the appellant in the case. Even if this statement is not taken into
consideration, even then the fact remains that Exhibit P11/C is the dying
declaration of victim Kuldeep Kaur wherein she has disclosed about her
previously being in relationship with the appellant and has stated that he
(appellant) was forcing her to marry him but she did not agree for the same
and he had visited their house earlier in the evening to ask her to meet him
but she had refused for the same and he had set her and her mother on fire.
PW9 SI Harinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, had moved application
Exhibit P9/A to the concerned doctor for seeking his opinion on the fitness
of Kuldeep Kaur and Jasvir Kaur to make statement, whereupon the doctor
6 of 9
had opined them to be fit for this purpose. Exhibit P11/A is the application
moved by PW9 to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for deputing
any Judicial officer for recording the statements of afore-said victims and
PW11 Sh. Satish Kumar, JMIC, had been deputed to do the needful in this
regard. PW11 has categorically deposed that he had sought the opinion of
doctor on the fitness of both the victims and on their having been declared
fit for the same vide the opinions appended on Exhibits P11/B & P11/E, he
had recorded their statements after directing their relatives to walk out from
the place. It is well-settled that a dying declaration is construed to be the
solemn and truthful statement/narration of the facts by the victim because
anticipating the nearing death, the deponent (victim) cannot be expected to
tell lies or to falsely implicate any person so as to settle any scores with
him/her. In the present case, victim Kuldeep Kaur herself has admitted her
relationship with the appellant before her marriage and in normal course of
events, no female would stake her feminine dignity and honour for falsely
involving anyone in a case. From the above-referred depositions of PW11,
it becomes clear that her dying declaration has been recorded in accordance
with the due procedure and there is nothing on the record to doubt the
truthfulness or veracity of the same.
9. So far as the contention regarding testimonies of PW2 to PW4
is concerned, though none of them has deposed that he had witnessed the
occurrence in question but we cannot lose sight of the fact that PW2 Darshan
Singh and PW3 Hardev Singh have made categoric depositions that they
had seen the appellant nervously coming out of the house of victims. These
depositions duly corroborate the version of prosecution qua the presence of
7 of 9
appellant at the spot at the time of incident resulting in burn injuries to both
the victims. PW4 Dara Singh has also deposed that the victims were loudly
shouting that the appellant had put them on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil
upon them and had run away from the spot and that he (PW4) had taken
them (victims) to the hospital. It would be apposite to mention here that
PW1 Angrej Singh and PW5 Gagandeep have also deposed that prior to the
alleged occurrence, the appellant had visited the house of victims at about
9:00 P.M. and had asked victim Kuldeep Kaur to accompany him and on her
refusal to do so, he had threatened to kill/eliminate her. These depositions
lend strength/credence to the contents of dying declaration (Exhibit P11/C)
of Kuldeep Kaur regarding the appellant having set her and her mother
ablaze. To add to it, PW5 Gagandeep has made specific depositions qua her
having witnessed the incident of the appellant sprinkling liquid on both the
victims and setting them on fire.
10. PW6 Dr. Vikas Gandhi and PW8 Dr. Ashwani Kumar had
conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Kuldeep Kaur
and Jasvir Kaur respectively and had reported about their (victims) having
suffered burn injuries to the extent of 90%. Though they have deposed that
no smell of kerosene oil or petrol was coming from the dead bodies but it is
pertinent to mention here that both these witnesses have also stated that the
dead bodies were wrapped with bandages/covered with medical dressing
(ASD). The occurrence in question had taken place during the intervening
night of 6th/7th March, 2014 and Kuldeep Kaur had passed away on
10.03.2014 whereas Jasvir Kaur had expired on 09.03.2014 and post-
mortem examination on their dead bodies had been conducted on
8 of 9
11.03.2014 and 10.03.2014 respectively. The victims had, admittedly, died
2/3 days after sustaining the burn injuries and in these circumstances, the
smell of kerosene oil or petrol may not necessarily be emanating from their
dead bodies at the time of post-mortem examination thereof. Even
otherwise, this fact, by itself, is not sufficient to impinge upon or discredit
the dying declaration Exhibit P11/C as made by victim Kuldeep Kaur.
11. The contention regarding one Satpal, the complainant in the
murder case involving victim Jasvir Kaur, having killed both the deceased
is devoid of any force because there is no material to substantiate the same.
Moreover, it does not stand the test of logic as to why the victims would let
the real culprit to go scot-free and falsely implicate the appellant in this
case. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he has rightly been convicted and
awarded the sentence as detailed earlier.
12. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgment dated 01.09.2016 as well as order on sentence dated
03.09.2016, passed by learned trial Court, do not suffer from any infirmity,
illegality or perversity or irregularity to warrant any interference by this
Court. Resultantly, the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, is dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
November 13, 2025
seema
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
