Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Satnam Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-1278-SB-2004 and CRA-S-1309-SB-2004
Decided On : 22-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J.S. Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of definite evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the granting of the benefit of doubt to the accused in the absence of such evidence.

Headnote:
FIR No. 56, dated 23.05.2000 - Conviction and sentence under Sections 307/452/364/511/323/336/148/149 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and arguments related to the charges under Sections 452, 307, 336, 364, 511, 148 and 149 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the benefit of doubt for the appellants and their discharge of the charges.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an incident where the complainant, Jarnail Singh, was allegedly attacked by the appellants at his residence. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offenses including attempt to murder, house trespass, and possession of arms. The defense argued that the incident did not take place as alleged and pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a lack of definite evidence to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies between the oral evidence and medical evidence, as well as inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. As a result, the court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and discharged them of the charges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's case, the lack of corroboration for the alleged incident, and the inconsistencies in the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of definite evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, discrepancies between the oral and medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. These factors led to the court granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants and discharging them of the charges.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals and discharged the appellants of the charges, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2004.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. - This judgment shall dispose of two appeals, i.e. CRA-S-1278- SB-2004 and CRA-S-1309-SB-2004, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur/Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 24, dated 06.09.2001, B.T. No. 27 of 30.04.2004, arising out of FIR No. 56, dated 23.05.2000, registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh.

2. Appellants - Satnam Singh, then aged 30 years; Sarbjit Singh, then aged 29 years; & Gurdarshan Singh, then aged 24 years, have filed CRA-S-1278-SB-2004, whereas appellants - Bhalinderjit Singh, then aged 43 years; & Mohinder Singh, then aged 46 years, have filed CRA-S-1309-SB-2004, against the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2004, whereby they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307/452/364/511/323/336/148/149 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, and sentenced as under:-

Name of convict/ appellant	Under Section	Sentence	Fine	In Default
Satnam Singh	148 IPC	3 years RI	--	--
	307/149 IPC	5 years RI	Rs.1000/-	3 months RI
	364/511 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	323 IPC	6 months RI	Rs.200/-	1 month RI
	452 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
Sarbjit Singh	148 IPC	3 years RI	--	--
	307/149 IPC	5 years RI	Rs.1000/-	3 months RI
	364/511 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	323 IPC	6 months RI	Rs.200/-	1 month RI
	452 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
Gurdarshan Singh	148 IPC	3 years RI	--	--
	307/149 IPC	5 years RI	Rs.1000/-	3 months RI
	364/511 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	323 IPC	6 months RI	Rs.200/-	1 month RI
	452 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
Bhalinderjit Singh	148 IPC	3 years RI	--	--
	307 IPC	5 years RI	Rs.1000/-	3 months RI
	364/511 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	323 IPC	6 months RI	Rs.200/-	1 month RI
	452 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	27/54/59 Arms Act	3 years RI	Rs.1000/-	2 months RI
Mohinder Singh	148 IPC	3 years RI	--	--
	307/149 IPC	5 years RI	Rs.1,000/-	3 months RI
	364/511 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	323 IPC	6 months RI	Rs.200/-	1 month RI
	452 IPC	2 years RI	Rs.500/-	1 month RI
	336 IPC	2 months RI	--	--
	27/54/59 Arms Act	3 years RI	Rs.1,000/-	2 months RI

3. Facts emerging from FIR No. 56, dated 23.05.2000, registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, are that:-

Complainant - Jarnail Singh, son of Joginder Singh, resident of Dhaler Kalan, stated that about two years ago, he had sold his land at Dhaler Kalan and purchased 65 bighas of land of Mohinder Singh, son of Chand Singh, resident of Narike. After the purchase, said land was given to same Mohinder Singh on Chakota, at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per bigha, for a period of two years. Lateron, complainant acknowledged that Mohinder Singh wants to grab his land, therefore, said land was given to one Balwinder Singh on contract basis (Theka), at the rate of Rs.2,300/- per bigha. On this, Mohinder Singh developed grudge against complainant - Jarnail Singh. Mohinder Singh was in relation with Bhalinderjit Singh, Satnam Singh, and Happy @ Sarbjit Singh.

On the intervening night of 22/23.05.2000, complainant -Jarnail Singh alongwith his servant (Siri) Kaka Khan, son of Ramjan Khan, resident of Dhaler Kalan, were sleeping in the courtyard of their house at village Dhaler Kalan. Wife of complainant - Jarnail Singh had gone with her aunt. At about 12.00 mid-night, someone knocked the door and he (complainant) asked his servant - Kaka Khan to open the door. Upon opening the door, Mohinder Singh armed with rifle, Bhalinderjit Singh armed with pistol, Satnam Singh armed with Soti, Sarabjit Singh armed with Soti, and one unidentified person entered in the house. Mohinder Singh raised Lalkara that they shall teach a lesson to the complainant for giving the land to some other person. All the persons caught hold the complainant and pulled him out in the street, where a Maruti Car No. PB-28-5300 was parked. All the accused tried to put the complainant in the car. On raising alarm - 'Marta Marta', neighbour Harjinder Singh opened his window, who assured the complainant that h