PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL AND JASJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.
Dilbag Singh And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-27-DB-2005 (O&M)
Decided on : 17-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
1. The appellants herein assail judgment dated 20.11.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which appellants namely Dilbag Singh, Shamsher Singh and Ravinder Singh have been held guilty and sentenced as under:
Name of the Convict | Offence Under Section | Imprisonment |
Dilbag Singh | 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment |
25 of Arms Act | Two Years | |
27 of Arms Act | Five Years | |
Shamsher Singh | 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment |
25 of Arms Act | Two Years | |
Ravinder Singh | 25 of Arms Act | 'undergone' period |
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.419, dated 17.9.2003 registered at Police Station Assandh, under Sections 302/307/4 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, lodged at the instance of Yashvir Singh (son of deceased Ranvir Singh), wherein it is alleged that on 17.9.2003 when he alongwith his brother Yudhvir Singh and his father Ranvir Singh (deceased) was returning home from their fields on a motorcycle, they were waylaid by his two uncles namely Dilbag Singh and Ravinder, who were accompanied by Shamsher Singh. Dilbag Singh and Ravinder were carrying country made pistols, whereas Shamsher Singh was carrying a double barrel .12 bore gun. Dilbag Singh fired 4 shots from his pistol hitting complainant's father on his neck, chin, chest and below his left armpit. Ravinder Singh also fired 3 shots at complainant's father hitting his left arm, waist and below right shoulder. When the complainant and his brother raised alarm, the accused rushed towards them as well. Shamsher Singh fired a shot in the air with his double barrel .12 bore gun. However, the complainant and his brother managed to save themselves by running towards the paddy fields. The accused thereafter went away on their motorcycle leaving complainant's father dead at the spot. The complainant alleged that there was a dispute over land amongst them and his uncle Dilbag Singh on account of which Dilbag Singh, Ravinder Singh and Shamsher Singh had murdered his father.
3. Immediately after lodging of the FIR, the police reached at the spot and photographed the place of occurrence, lifted blood stained soil, a shoe of the deceased and also took into possession the motorcycle on which the deceased and complainant were riding. Inquest proceedings were conducted. The dead body of deceased was taken to hospital and was subjected to post-mortem examination.
4. On the next day i.e. on 18.9.2003, Inspector/SHO Darshan Lal (PW-14) again visited the place of occurrence and recovered a bullet 'sikka', and an empty cartridge from the paddy fields of Om Parkash, Ex. Sarpanch, where the occurrence had taken place. On 19.9.2003, the accused were produced before Inspector/SHO Darshan Lal by Raj Rup, Ex.Sarpanch of Village Ballah and were arrested. The motorcycle used by the accused was also taken into possession. It is further the case of prosecution that on 20.9.2003, upon interrogation, the accused suffered a disclosure statements pursuant to which they got recovered two country made pistols and a double barrel .12 bore licenced gun of Dilbag Singh. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused before the Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Karnal vide commitment order dated 2.12.2003. Learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, upon finding sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused for offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act accordingly framed charges vide order dated 7.1.2004.
5. The prosecution in order to substantiate his case examined as many as 14 witnesses. The gist of their testimonies is stated herein-under:
PW-1 ASI Jagdish Chand stated that on 17.9.2003 he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Station Assandh and that upon receipt of a ruqa (Ex.PA) through Constable Ram Mehar Singh, he recorded formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) and after recording the same he sent special reports through
A conviction for murder cannot be sustained solely on expert testimony without corroborative evidence, especially when eyewitnesses contradict the prosecution's case.
The conviction was upheld based on strong evidentiary links, including a confession and ballistic evidence, demonstrating the accused's culpability in murder and related firearms offences.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
1) When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other.(2) In cases where injurie....
The court established that a lack of premeditation and the presence of provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.