IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1784-SB-2007 Bohar Singh and Another ..... Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CRR-2250-2007 Gurdip Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Ors.

..... Respondents Reserved on : 16.01.2026 Pronounced on : 30.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the appellants in CRA-S-1784-SB-2007 Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-2250-2007.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This common judgment shall dispose of one appeal preferred by the convicts and one revision petition preferred by the complainant-

Gurdip Singh. Since both the abovementioned cases, i.e. appeal and revision are arising out of the same judgment, both of them are being decided together.

2. The abovesaid appeal, preferred by the appellants/convicts, hereinafter being referred as ‘appellants’ only, has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, recorded by the Court of learned Additional & Sessions Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 31.08.2007, hereinafter being referred to as impugned judgment only.

3. With regard to same judgment, the Revision Petition has been preferred by the complainant-Gurdip Singh, who is aggrieved of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, whereby instead of Section 302 of IPC, the accused have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC only.

4. The abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed in a trial arising out of FIR No.31 dated

06.02.2005, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Lambi.

5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that, that the abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Gurdip Singh’ hereinafter being referred as ‘complainant only’. The pith and substance of the abovementioned FIR was that on 06.02.2005 at about 07:15/07:30 A.M., the complainant, along with his father Gurjant Singh, had gone to Gurdwara Sahib to pay obeisance, and that after paying obeisance when both of them were returning home, there was a gap of about 20-30 yards between them.

According to complainant, when his father was in front of the house of ‘Bohar Singh’, ‘Bohar Singh’ and his son ‘Gursewak Singh’, both armed with dangs (wooden sticks), came there and ‘Gursewak Singh’ exhorted to teach a lesson to the father of the complainant, for defaming him. It was further stated by the complainant that thereafter, both of them launched an assault upon his father and inflicted one injury each with the help of wooden sticks being carried by them. As per complainant, he screamed for help, which was responded by his brother ‘Kuldip Singh’ and ‘Shamsher Singh’. It was further alleged by the complainant that thereafter the assailants fled from the spot and he took his father to the hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

7. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the inquest report, Ex.PW6/B, was prepared and the spot was inspected. As per prosecution, during spot inspection the site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex.PW6/G, was prepared. As per prosecution during investigation, the postmortem report of the deceased was collected, the accused were arrested and the weapon of offence were recovered. The prosecution has further alleged that the assailants, namely ‘Bohar Singh’ and ‘Gursewak Singh’ were arrested, the weapon of offence were recovered from their possession and all other formalities were taken up. The prosecution has further alleged that on completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed before the Court, which led to trial.

8. To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellants, the prosecution in