PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
Jalaur Singh And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRA S-489-SB-2003 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Name of the convicts | Offence | Sentence |
Jalaur Singh, Lachhman Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangal Singh | 148 IPC | R.I. for six months each and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each. |
Jalaur Singh, Lachhman Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangal Singh | 450 IPC | R.I. for five years each and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months each. |
Mangal Singh | 326 IPC | R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. |
Jalaur Singh, Lachhman Singh, Bakhtaur Singh and Dilbag Singh | 326/149 IPC | R.I. for five years each and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months each. |
Bakhtaur Singh and Lachhman Singh | 323 IPC | R.I. for six months each and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each. |
Jalaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangal Singh | 323/149 IPC | R.I. for six months each and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each. |
Dilbag Singh | 323 IPC | R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each. |
Jalaur Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Lachhman Singh and Mangal Singh | 323/149 IPC | R.I. for six months each and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each. |
Jalaur Singh | 323 IPC | R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days. |
Lachhman Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangal Singh | 323/149 IPC | R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days. |
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Pal Singh, who alleged that they were five brothers and his brothers, namely, Balvir Singh, Lal Singh and Jit Singh had expired. Malkiat Singh was alive. All the five brothers were joint owners of 14 Kanais of land and all of them were in possession of the same. They had sown narma crop in the said land. A case was pending regarding this land with Bhagwan Singh son of Pal Singh in the Court at Moga and all the five co-sharers had been spending money equally. On 06.09.2000 Pal Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur went to pick cotton of their share in the land and had an altercation with Jalaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangai Singh all accused. He and his wife were pushed out of the fields by saying that the complainant and Jit Singh had no share in the land and told them that he would take his share as well as share of Jit Singh with the help of police. At about 10.00 a.m., on 06.09.2000 they were sleeping in the courtyard by closing the door and in the meantime, Mangai Singh armed with Gandasa, Jalaur Singh armed with gandasa, Dilbag Singh, Bakhtaur Singh and Balvir Singh armed with dangs, forcibly opened the door and entered his house. Bakhtaur Singh and Lachhman Singh accused gave dang blows on the waist and right arm of his son Jagsir Singh and laid him on the ground. Darbara Singh gave a dang blow to his daughter-in-law Amarjit Kaur due to which she fell down and received injuries on both of her elbows. They also gave kick blows on her right thigh. He came forward raising noise 'Na Maro Na Maro' then Mangai Singh gave a gandasa blow on his head from its sharp side. On hearing noise, Gurmail Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, Majbi, resident of Charik, who was serving in the land of Baba Kalu, came to their house. Then Jalaur Singh gave a gandasa blow from its blunt side on his back. They raised noise 'Marta Marta', then the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons, hurling abuses and stating that they have handed over the possession through
The court upheld the conviction for murder, emphasizing that fear-induced delays in FIR registration and eyewitness testimony were credible despite long lapses in time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, post-mortem evidence, and the lack of evidence to support the appellants' claims in affirming the con....
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.