PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL AND JASJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.
Shanku And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-272-DB-2005 (O&M)
Decided on : 21-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
1. Appellants - Shanku and Balbir Singh have preferred this appeal assailing judgment dated 24.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which they were held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life apart from payment of fine amounting to Rs.5000/- each. However, since appellant No.2 - Balbir Singh has expired during the pendency of this appeal, the proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dated 17.02.2025. As such, the instant appeal survives only qua appellant No.1 - Shanku.
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.21 dated 08.02.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, under Sections 302/34 IPC (Ex.P10/B) on the basis of statement (Ex.P10) of Bhajan Singh, wherein he stated that he is a labourer by profession and works for Food Corporation of India (FCI), Fazilka and that they are 5 brothers. He stated that his eldest brother Khushal Singh had died and his wife Jeeto Bai was now residing with Bhagwan Singh, who used to reside in his in-laws village Kotha Thagni. Bhagwan Singh was also a labourer working for FCI. The complainant stated that he as well as his brothers Mangal Singh and Baggu Singh reside in separate houses in Village Nawan Hasta. He further stated that on 08.02.2001 at about 2.30 PM, when he (complainant), Bhagwan Singh, Mangal Singh and Baggu Singh were present in his house, then Mangal Singh disclosed that at about 10.00 AM, Chhinder Singh and his son Bittu were playing with marbles (small round glass balls) by digging a pit in the house of Baggu Singh and when he (Baggu Singh) objected to the same, Chhinder Singh hurled abuses to him and consequently he had slapped Chhinder Singh upon which Chhinder Singh went back home and after some time came back alongwith other members of his family armed with sticks, but the respectable of the village settled the matter. The complainant further stated that while Mangal Singh was narrating about the said incident, they heard noise commotion and when the complainant climbed to the roof of kotha, he saw that Jagir Singh armed with .12 bore gun, his son Shanku Singh armed with stick, Makhan Singh armed with kirpan, Karnail Singh armed with stick as well as Sham Singh @ Shama and his brother Balbir Singh armed with gandassis were standing in front of small gate of his house leading to the house of Mangal Singh and that they were raising lalkaras challenging them to come out and that they would teach them a lesson for slapping Chhinder Singh. The complainant further stated that his brother Bhagwan Singh went out of the small gate and apologized to the aforesaid persons with folded hands. At that time, complainant's brothers Mangal Singh and Baggu Singh were standing in the courtyard of their house. The complainant alleged that Balbir Singh and Chanku Singh exhorted their companions to fire shot and not to spare, upon which Jagir Singh fired a shot from his gun aiming it towards Bhagwan Singh and as a result of the shot, Bhagwan Singh fell down. When the complainant and his brothers raised alarm, the assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Bhagwan Singh had been hit on the right side of his chest and died on account of firearm shot.
3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police conducted requisite investigation during the course of which inquest proceedings in respect of death of Bhagwan Singh were conducted. The dead body of Bhagwan Singh was got subjected to post-mortem examination. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, Makhan Singh, Karnail Singh, Chanku and Balbir Singh were found innocent and consequently, challan was presented only against Jagir Singh and Sham Singh on 30.03.2001 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, who upon finding that the facts prima facie discl
A conviction for murder cannot be sustained solely on expert testimony without corroborative evidence, especially when eyewitnesses contradict the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
The conviction for murder was overturned due to significant doubts arising from procedural delays, witness credibility issues, and insufficient evidence meeting the standard of proof beyond reasonabl....
The consistency and reliability of witness testimony are crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
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.