Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, H.S. GREWAL, JJ.
Bikram Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondents
CRA-D No.823-DB of 2005, Criminal Revision No.2292 of 2005, Criminal Revision No.1204 of 2006, CRM-A No.130-MA of 2006
Decided On : 08-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate With Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate, Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate (Through V.C.), Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

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 reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 173 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life; co-accused acquitted - Court found prosecution evidence weak due to unexplained FIR delay and contradictions in witness statements - Eyewitness's credibility undermined by natural conduct, insufficient independent witnesses, and lack of motive - Ultimately, conviction deemed unsafe. (Paras 48, 49).

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - The benefit of doubt must enure to the accused, necessitating acquittal when evidence is insufficient. (Paras 43, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murder following an incident at a wedding where gunfire resulted in a death. His conviction was contested based on procedural delays and witness credibility. (Paras 2, 4, 48)

Findings of Court:
Conviction unsustainable due to significant lapses in prosecution and evidence. Acquittal of appellant ordered. (Paras 48, 49)

Issues: The reliability of witness testimony and the impact of delayed FIR on the prosecution case were crucial. (Paras 43, 45)

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that unexplained evidence failures and inconsistent witness accounts create a compelling doubt, leading to the necessity of acquitting the accused. (Paras 43, 46)

Result: Appeal allowed and the appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. details of the incident leading to prosecution (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. testimony of witnesses and evidence regarding the shooting (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. arguments by the appellant questioning the prosecution's case (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. court's evaluation of the prosecution's and defense's arguments (Para 39 , 43)
5. outcome of the appeal and dismissal of revision petitions (Para 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT :

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

By this order, we propose to dispose of the above-mentioned appeal, two Criminal Revision Petitions as well as the application filed by the State for grant of leave to appeal, as they pertain to the same occurrence.

2. The appeal i.e. CRA-D No.823-DB of 2005 is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2005 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellant- Bikram Singh, was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, while his co-accused Jatinder Singh alias Lucky, Manjit Singh alias Shuka and Avtar Singh were acquitted. Accused Jagmohan Singh expired during trial, and accused Baljinder Singh alias Billa was declared a proclaimed offender.

3. The revision petition i.e. CRR No.2292 of 2005 has been filed with a prayer that conviction and sentence awarded upon Bikram Singh be maintained and the amount of fine be enhanced, whereas CRR No.1204 of 2006 and CRM-A-130-MA-2006 have been preferred by the complainant and State of Punjab respectively, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.10.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the accused-respondents Jatinder Singh alias Lucky, Manjit Singh alias Shuka and Avtar Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution, in essence, originates from the statement of Jagmohan Singh (since expired during trial) recorded on 24.02.2003 by Sub Inspector Surinder Singh. This statement (Exhibit PH) formed the basis for the registration of FIR (Exhibit PH/2).

5. As per the version so set forth, Jagmohan Singh, owner-cum- driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR29-G-4666, had on 23.02.2003, along with Kashmir Singh (driver) transported the marriage party of Jaswinder Singh son of Avtar Singh, from Village Reru to Vindsor Palace, Phagwara. The marriage party included two persons, who were carrying 12 bore guns with them.

6. During the celebrations, Baljinder Singh son of Avtar Singh, Romi son of Jinder Arora, Satinderpal son of Charanjit Singh, and Manjit Singh alias Shuka were seen exchanging the guns and firing shots in a jubilant mood. Avtar Singh (father of the groom) openly encouraged the firing, telling them that on such a joyous occasion they could fire as much as they pleased.

7. At about 5:30 pm, as the baraat was departing from Vindsor Palace, Manjit Singh alias Shuka was allegedly holding one such firearm. By that time, most members of the marriage party had departed, leaving behind only a few persons including Appellant-Bikram Singh (son of Sakattar Singh), also known as President, Jatinder Singh alias Lucky and some relatives from the bride's side.

8. Allegedly, Manjit Singh alias Shuka aimed the firearm at Mohan Singh and fired, hitting him on the right side of the abdomen, causing him to collapse. Thereafter, Bikram Singh (appellant herein), Jatinder Singh alias Lucky, and Manjit Singh alias Shuka, after handing over the firearm to someone else, approached the fallen Mohan Singh, lifted him and placed him in a vehicle. At the instance of appellant-Bikram Singh, injured Mohan Singh was rushed to Janta Hospital, Jalandhar. While being administered first aid, Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) succumbed to his injuries. Appellant-Bikram Singh then allegedly instructed Jagmohan Singh and others to take the body of the deceased to his residence.

9. The dead body of the deceased w