High Court Convicts Accused in 2001 Murder Case, Overturning Trial Court Acquittal

Hoshiarpur, Punjab – In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Gurvinder SinghGill , the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned a 2003 acquittal, convicting Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh for the murder of Amrik Singh in 2001. The State of Punjab had appealed against the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur's decision, which had acquitted both accused of charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Kewal Singh .

Case Background and FIR

The case originates from FIR No. 173, dated August 17, 2001, registered at Police Station Tanda, based on the statement of Taranjit Singh . According to the FIR, Taranjit Singh , along with his brother-in-law Amrik Singh and sister-in-law Lakhwinder Kaur , were traveling on a scooter when they were hit by a jeep driven by Kewal Singh , with Gulzar Singh as a passenger. Taranjit Singh alleged that Kewal Singh , armed with a gun, and Gulzar Singh , with a kirpan, attacked them. Kewal Singh allegedly exhorted Gulzar Singh to kill Amrik Singh to avenge his son's murder. Gulzar Singh then struck Amrik Singh with the kirpan, followed by Kewal Singh firing a fatal shot into Amrik Singh 's chest.

The motive cited was the prior murder of Kewal Singh 's son by Amrik Singh in 1997, for which Amrik Singh had been convicted but was out on bail pending appeal.

Trial Court Acquittal and State Appeal

The trial court acquitted Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh , citing several reasons including unexplained injuries on Gulzar Singh , delay in sending case property to the forensic lab, doubts about the witness testimonies, and non-examination of the vehicle owners.

The State of Punjab challenged this acquittal, arguing that the consistent eyewitness accounts of Taranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur , coupled with a strong motive and weapon recoveries, were sufficient to prove guilt.

High Court's Observations and Reasoning

Justice Gill , in his judgment, meticulously examined the evidence, highlighting the following key points:

Consistent Eyewitness Testimony

The High Court emphasized the consistent testimonies of PW-5 Taranjit Singh and PW-6 Lakhwinder Kaur , the injured eyewitnesses. Both witnesses provided detailed accounts of the incident, clearly implicating Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh in the attack on Amrik Singh . The court noted that despite extensive cross-examination, their core testimonies remained unshaken.

> "In the present case, we find that PW-5 Taranjit Singh (complainant) and PW-6 Lakhwinder Kaur have both stated consistently regarding the manner of occurrence... Both of them have categorically stated... that while Kewal Singh fired with his 12 bore gun hitting on the chest of Amrik Singh , Gulzar Singh inflicted an injury with the sword (kirpan) on the neck of Amrik Singh ."

Corroboration from Medical Evidence

Medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The post-mortem report confirmed that Amrik Singh 's death was due to firearm injuries. Injuries sustained by Taranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur were consistent with their account of falling from the scooter after being hit by the jeep.

Motive

The court underscored the strong motive for the accused to target Amrik Singh , stemming from the 1997 murder of Kewal Singh 's son by the deceased. This pre-existing enmity provided a compelling reason for the accused to commit the crime.

Recovery of Weapons and FSL Report

The recovery of the 12 bore gun at Kewal Singh 's instance and the kirpan at Gulzar Singh 's instance, along with the FSL report confirming that the empty cartridge found at the scene was fired from Kewal Singh 's gun, provided crucial corroborative evidence. The court dismissed the defense's doubts about the empty cartridge recovery, clarifying that the recovered gun was a "Trombone Action" gun which automatically ejects cartridges.

> "As per the report of FSL (Ex.PDD), the firing mechanism of 12 bore single barrel trombone action gun No.6-08532V was in the working condition. As per the report of FSL, the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered “Trombone Action” gun. The report of FSL, thus, fully corroborates the case of prosecution."

Unexplained Injuries on Accused

Regarding the trial court's concern about unexplained injuries on Gulzar Singh , the High Court applied judicial precedents, noting that while unexplained injuries on the accused should be considered cautiously, they do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case, especially when there is strong and credible eyewitness testimony. The court referenced Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu etc. Vs. State of Punjab & another and Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others to emphasize that the focus should be on the overall evidence.

> "There is no absolute rule that in every case of unexplained injuries, the case of the prosecution has to be thrown out. The only duty cast on the Court is to scrutinize the case of prosecution with all the more caution and to be satisfied that all other evidence is consistent with the case of prosecution."

Criticism of Trial Court's Reasoning

The High Court criticized the trial court for making observations against the record and giving undue weightage to minor infirmities like the non-examination of vehicle owners and the delay in sending case property to the FSL. The court clarified that the delay was partially explained due to objections raised by the FSL initially and there was no evidence of tampering.

High Court Decision and Sentence

Based on the comprehensive evidence, the High Court found the trial court's acquittal unsustainable. It reversed the acquittal, holding Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC. However, Kewal Singh 's acquittal under the Arms Act was upheld due to lack of prosecution sanction.

Considering the age of the convicts (both over 70) and their personal circumstances, the High Court sentenced both Kewal Singh and Gulzar Singh to rigorous imprisonment for life.

The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and credible eyewitness testimony, especially when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, in overcoming minor discrepancies and unexplained aspects in criminal cases. This decision brings closure to a case pending for over two decades and reaffirms the High Court's commitment to delivering justice based on substantive evidence.