Lack of Medical Corroboration for Kirpan Injuries Warrants Acquittal Despite Eyewitness Testimony: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-09-17

Legal Awareness & Information.

High Court Upholds Murder Conviction for Two in Land Dispute Triple Homicide, Acquits Three Citing Contradiction with Medical Evidence

Chandigarh, September 17, 2025 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while adjudicating a two-decade-old criminal appeal, has upheld the life sentences for two men convicted for a triple murder stemming from a land dispute. However, in a significant ruling, the court acquitted three other co-accused, giving them the "benefit of doubt" due to a glaring contradiction between eyewitness accounts of assault with sharp weapons and the absence of corresponding injuries in the medical reports.

A division bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H.S. Grewal meticulously dissected the evidence, underscoring the legal principle that while ocular testimony is crucial, it must be weighed against scientific evidence, and irreconcilable inconsistencies must be resolved in favor of the accused.

The Case Background: A Deadly Land Dispute

The case dates back to May 6, 2001, when a long-standing property dispute in Ludhiana escalated into a violent confrontation. According to the prosecution, the complainant party began construction on the disputed land, which was met with a violent assault by a group led by Joginder Singh Tiger. The attack resulted in the deaths of Nirbhai Singh, Malkiat Singh, and Gurnam Singh from firearm injuries, and left two others, Jagtar Singh and Sukhjit Singh, wounded.

In 2004, the Additional Sessions Judge in Ludhiana convicted seven men, including the appellants, for murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and violations of the Arms Act, sentencing them all to life imprisonment under the principle of vicarious liability (Section 149 IPC). The appeal was filed against this judgment, during which the primary accused, Joginder Singh Tiger, passed away.

Clashing Arguments in the High Court

Appellants' Stance: The defense counsel, Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, launched a multi-pronged attack on the trial court's verdict. The key arguments were: - Right of Private Defense: The appellants possessed civil court decrees for the land, making the complainant party the aggressors. - Flawed Investigation: The police investigation was criticized for severe lapses, including a month-long delay in recording statements of the injured eyewitnesses. - Crucial Contradiction: The most heavily argued point was the stark conflict between the eyewitnesses, who claimed several accused attacked the victims with kirpans (swords) and a gandasa (axe), and the post-mortem reports, which found no incised or sharp-edged wounds on any of the three deceased.

State's Counter: The State, represented by Sr. DAG Mr. H.S. Deol, defended the conviction, arguing: - Aggressors with Lethal Weapons: The appellants came armed with firearms and other deadly weapons, indicating they were the aggressors, regardless of any civil decree. - Reliability of Injured Witnesses: The testimony of injured eyewitnesses carries significant weight and should not be discarded due to procedural delays in recording statements. - Ocular Evidence Prevails: Minor discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence are natural in a chaotic melee and should not discredit the core prosecution case.

High Court's Dissection of Evidence and Final Verdict

The High Court meticulously evaluated the evidence against each appellant, distinguishing between those linked by forensic evidence and those implicated solely by questionable testimony.

The court observed, "When ocular testimony is credible and consistent, minor discrepancies with medical evidence do not detract from it. However, where medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of injuries attributed by ocular testimony, it is unsafe to convict."

Applying this principle, the bench delivered a split verdict:

• Convictions Upheld: The convictions of Avtar Singh alias Mara and Varinder Singh alias Billu under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and the Arms Act were upheld. The court found that their roles in firing the fatal gunshots were consistently established by injured eyewitnesses and strongly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including FSL reports linking recovered cartridges to licensed firearms.

• Conviction Modified: The conviction of Bhagwan Singh alias Honey was modified. While acquitted of murder charges due to the lack of evidence for kirpan injuries, his conviction under the Arms Act was sustained. The court noted that a firearm license was in his name and forensic reports linked cartridges from the scene to it, establishing his connection to the weapons used.

• Acquittals: Harjinder Singh alias Jind, Jaspreet Singh, and Varinder Singh alias Bittu were acquitted of all charges. The case against them rested entirely on allegations of inflicting kirpan and gandasa blows. The complete absence of incised wounds in the medical reports was deemed a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case against them. The court found it unsafe to uphold their life sentences based on uncorroborated and contradictory testimony.

The High Court also set aside the application of Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly with a common object) against the remaining convicts, as the acquittal of three members brought the number of proven participants below the required threshold of five.

The judgment directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take the three convicted men into custody to serve the remainder of their sentences.