SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 307

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 
Jasjit Singh Bedi and Gurvinder Singh Gill, JJ.
Tek Chand And Others – Appellant
Versus 
State Of Haryana – Respondent 
CRA-D-186-DB-2005 (O&M)
Decided on : 03-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Ms. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, Tek Chand
For the Respondent:Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana; Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate, for the complainant.

The court emphasizes the primacy of ocular testimony over medical evidence in assessing culpability in assault and murder cases, reinforcing the need for a clear understanding of individual roles in incidents of group violence.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 325, and 149 - Murder and injuries arising from a dispute over a water channel - Appellants convicted and sentenced by the trial court, with certain appeals accepted and sentences modified by the High Court, reflecting on the nature of injuries and culpability - Common intention and objects of the unlawful assembly assessed - Acquitted of serious charges; liability for injuries on non-vital parts addressed. (Paras 9 to 40)

(B) Legal Interpretation - The ocular testimony of witnesses is given primacy over medical evidence in cases of conflict, affirming the principle that direct evidence holds greater weight in establishing the facts of a case. (Paras 20, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The case centers on an altercation resulting from the dismantling of a water channel, leading to the murder of Mangat Ram and injuries to his sons. The accused, armed and with prior litigation-based animosity, attacked the complainants. The incident resulted in the death of Mangat Ram and injuries to three others.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction for offenses under specific IPC sections, addressing the individual roles and culpabilities of the accused concerning inflicted injuries.

Issues: The court examined the legality of the prior order of dismantling the water channel, the extent of culpability amongst accused, and the validity of claims of a blind murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while two defendants were directly responsible for murder, other defendants were liable for injuries but not murder, emphasizing the necessity of assessing individual culpability based on established common intention.

Result: Appeal partly accepted; convictions modified with some acquitted.

Table of Content
1. details of the incident and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the investigation process and evidence collected. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. medical evidence supporting the prosecution. (Para 12 , 17 , 20)
4. specific actions and injuries inflicted by each accused. (Para 24 , 25 , 28)
5. conclusion on individual liability and acquittal. (Para 35 , 36 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Ganesha, Surta, Veerbhan, Parkash, Shishpal @ Sainsi, Nanu Ram, Krishan and Nafe Singh @ Nafiya preferred this appeal assailing judgment dated 10.2.2005 and order dated 12.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. However, Tek Chand and Ganesha having expired, the proceedings qua them stand abated. The trial Court while holding them guilty imposed sentence as under:-

Section

Sentence

302 IPC

To undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

324 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

323 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months

325 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months

148 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

2. The matter arises out of FIR No. 116, dated 02.07.2002, Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal, under Sections 148 , 302, 323, 324, 325, 149 IPC (Ex.PA/1), lodged on the statement/ruqa (Ex.PA) of complainant Ram Kala son of Mangat Ram. The translated gist of the FIR reads as under:

"I am a resident of village Kawartan. We are three brothers. Ram Dia is eldest and I am younger to him and the youngest is Rameshwar. We have agriculture land measuring 22 killas which is situated about 2 kilometers away from the village. The fields of Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Surta Ram and Ganeshi Ram who are sons of Puri Ram are situated adjacent to our fields. A water channel passes through our fields leading to the fields of Tek Chand etc. We had initiated litigation to get the said khal' (water channel) dismantled in the Court of XEN (Canal) Kaithal and the same had been decided in our favour. As per the said decision, the water channel was to remain in existence only upto 30.6.2002 and thereafter the same was not required to be maintained. Today i.e. on 02.07.2002 at about 8/8.15 am, I along with my brothers Rameshwar and Ram Dia along with our father Mangat Ram started demolishing the water channel with the help of kassis'. In the meantime, four sons of Puri Ram namely Tek Chand and Neki Ram carrying gandasi', Surta Ram carrying lathi' and Ganesha Ram carrying jaili' along with three sons of Tek Chand namely Beeru, Krishan and Nanhu who were carrying lathi' and two sons of Neki Ram namely Sainsi and Parkasha carrying gandasi' in their hands and also brother-in-law of Tek Chand carrying lathi' came there having made consultations with each other. Tek Chand raised a lalkara' exhorting his companions to teach all of us a lesson for demolishing the water channel. Thereafter, all of them attacked us with their respective weapons. Tek Chand gave gandasi' blow on the head of my father Mangat Ram. Neki Ram gave a gandasi' blow on left hand of my father Mangat Ram and upon which my father fell on the ground. While my father was lying fallen, Ganeshi gave a jaili' blow on the left eye and on the left ear of my father. Thereafter, Biru son of Tek Chand inflicted a blow with stick on the left arm of my father. In the meantime, Surta son of Puri gave a blow with lathi' on the right side of my head. Biru son of Tek Chand gave a blow with lathi' on my left arm. Krishan son of Tek Chand also inflicted a blow with lathi' on my left arm. Nanhu son of Tek Chand inflicted a blow with lathi' on my left leg. Biru thereafter gave another blow with a stick hitting my left knee. Krishan gave a blow with lathi' on my chest. Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Surta, Ganesha sons of Puri Ram, Biru, Krishan and Nanhu sons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top