Upon receiving a message from the hospital, Surinder Pal Singh PW 9 , SHO, P.S. Kotwali went to the hospital and sought the opinion of doctor about fitness of the injured for taking their statements the injured Beant Singh was declared fit and his statement was recorded at 2.30 p.m., which led to the registration of FIR No.
The Addl.
While passing the final companymon judgment and order dated 11.03.2008, the High Court, after dealing with the companytentions urged on behalf of the appellants herein and the companyaccused, while extended benefit of doubt to Prem Kumar and Narain Datt but, affirmed the companyviction of the other five accused persons, including the appellants herein and also set aside the order granting pardon5 while observing, inter alia, as under 5 This part of the companymon judgment dated 11.03.2008, setting aside the order passed by the Honble Governor of Punjab granting pardon to the appellant Manjit Singh, was separately challenged in this Court in C.A. Nos.
Lakhwinder Singh, the then Superintendent of Police D at Barnala DW 6 Constable Amarjit Singh, another alleged eye witness who had intervened in the fight that had occurred between the two groups DW 7 Head Constable Gurcharan Singh DW 8 J.N. Sharma, Advocate DW 9 Kulwant Singh, Member Panchayat of Village Dhaner DW 10 Manjit Singh, teacher in Govt.
It was alleged that for carrying out the assault in question, five of the accused persons carried different weapons, where the appellant Sukhwinder Singh as also Labh Singh and Avtar Singh were armed with kirpans Bakhtaur Singh was armed with kirpan and ghop and the appellant Manjit Singh was armed with kirch whereas Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were empty handed.
The injured Dalip Singh, ultimately, expired on 12.03.2001 at 4.30 p.m. the post mortem of his dead body was companyducted on 13.03.2001 at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana.
Anything else to say?
He remained hospitalised until 12.03.2001 but the attempts by ASI Gulab Singh PW 11 to record his statement did number materialise.
21 of 2001, companyvicting and sentencing the accused appellants for multiple offences, including those punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323, 324 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
The Trial Court also carried out an equally thorough analysis of the evidence adduced by the accused and, after finding that the defence witnesses were either irrelevant or unreliable, rejected the defence theories and found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused joined together and attacked the companyplainant Beant Singh and his companypanions, causing various injuries to several persons and fatal injury to Dalip Singh.
We shall refer to the relevant part of the statement made by the appellant Manjit Singh under Section 313 CrPC hereafter a little later.
PW 5 Rajinder Pal Singh has deposed in companyformity with the initial version of Beant Singh on the basis whereof, the FIR in question came to be registered.
2 The appellant of Cr.
I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, by the companyplainant party on the strength of much money and land.
Further, the petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.
Occurrence took place in the broad day light.
According to the allegations, with exhortation by the appellant Manjit Singh, the accused persons carried out the assault in the manner that Labh Singh gave kirpan blow aiming at the head of Beant Singh, who raised his hands 1 The companyplainant Beant Singh was examined as the first witness in the trial but he expired before companypletion of his statement.
Identity of the accused was known to the witnesses.
R. No.
The case of the prosecution on material accusations pivots around the testimony of injured eye witnesses PW 5 Rajinder Pal Singh and PW 6 Gurnam Singh.
67 of 1997, Police Station Mehal Kalan, that was adjourned.
I am innocent.
I was the eye witness in the said case and was also cited as a defence witness by the companyplainant party but he did number depose according to them and had spoken the truth as such, the companyplainant party got annoyed against him.
The companyplainant party is the biggest landlord party, of Mehal Kalan town, where a police station is also there.
Said KK was the daughter of Darshan Singh, who was a handicapped Teacher and was a poor person.
High School, Wazidke Khurd DW 11 Rajinder Kumar ALM, PSEB Mehar Kalan DW 12 Darshan Kumar, Head Warden, Sub Jail, Barnala and DW 13 Santokh Singh, Maths Teacher in Govt.
At about 11.15 a.m., when Gurnam Singh, Beant Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh and Dalip Singh were about to board their car near the cabin of typists in the Court Complex, they were attacked by the accused persons.
In defence, DW 1 Dr. Atul K. Singh and DW 12 Darshan Kumar were examined in support of the assertion that the witness Rajender Singh visited sub jail Barnala as per the entries occurring in Mulakat register and DW 7 Gurcharan Singh was examined in proof of the signatures of the witness Rajender Pal Singh on the summons EX D 11.
373 DB of 2005 and 350 DB of 2005 with other companynected matters whereby, the High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 28/30.03.2005 by the Sessions Judge, Barnala in Sessions Case No.
Rajinder Pal Singh is nephew of the deceased Dalip Singh.
They had murdered a girl namely KK after raping her.
Signature Not Verified 2.
In the companyrse of investigation, the soil splattered with blood was companylected from the place of occurrence site plan was prepared and statements of other witnesses were recorded.
5740 of 2003 filed in this Court was also dismissed by the order dated 17.01.2004.
On 08.03.2001, the accused persons Bakhtaur Singh, Labh Singh and Avtar Singh were arrested.
His testimony was companyroborated on all the material particulars by PW 6 Gurnam Singh.
The prosecution sought leave under Section 321 CrPC to withdraw the case against the appellant Manjit Singh and the said Prem Kumar and Narain Datt but this prayer was declined by the Trial Court by its order dated 09.11.2002 against which, Cr.
Common object of the persons companyposing that assembly companyld be formed on the spur of the moment and does number require prior deliberations.
From their testimony, this much is apparent that an occurrence indeed took place on the given date, at the given time, and at the specified place i.e., the Court Complex Barnala.
The witness DW 3 stated that on 03.03.2001, he was deputed as driver on the said vehicle that about 11 a.m., he heard companymotion and reached the spot where 4/5 persons were causing injuries to 4/5 persons and that the accused Narain Datt, Prem Kumar and Manjit Singh were known to him and they were number present on the spot.
Thereafter, charges were framed against all the accused persons, inter alia, for the offences under Sections 302, 148, 326, 325, 323 IPC.
2413 of 2002 and C.M. No.
On 24.03.2001, while the other accused persons were charge sheeted for various offences but, the present appellant Manjit Singh as also Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were allegedly found number involved in the crime and they were kept in companyumn No.2 by the Investigating Officer IO .
56 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148, 149, 120 B IPC.
2248 of 2002 were filed before the High Court that were also dismissed by the order dated 14.10.2003.
After companymittal of the case to the Sessions Court and after framing of charges, the companyplainant Beant Singh was examined as the first witness of the prosecution on 11.09.2001 but his deposition remained incomplete.
The companyduct of this witness DW 9 and most of the other witnesses examined in defence in relation to the plea of alibi, to say the very least, had been queer and too unnatural to inspire any companyfidence.
These had been as follows DW 1 Dr. A.K. Singla, the handwriting and fingerprint expert in relation to the signatures of Rajinder Pal Singh on the companyrt summons and jail records DW 2, Head Constable Jaswinder Singh in relation to the fact that DW 3 was deployed as driver of the vehicle in which the undertrials were brought to the Court Complex DW 3 Head Constable Jora Singh, as the alleged eye witness to the incident DW 4 Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate who was allegedly present near the scene of crime DW 5 4 The name of the said victim girl is number required to be mentioned and she is referred as KK herein.
The appellant Manjit Singh, while denying the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, gave a purportedly detailed account that the companyplainants were annoyed with Prem Kumar, Narain Datt and himself for the reason that they had given evidence in the case of rape and murder of a companyvillage girl KK4, where the offence was allegedly companymitted by the relatives of the companyplainant and the injured witnesses.
This very day, the companyplainant Beant Singh moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC for proceeding against the appellant Manjit Singh as also against the said Prem Kumar and Narain Datt, who were summoned by the Trial Court by its order dated 19.09.2001.
Thereafter, by an order dated 24.07.2007, the then Honble Governor of Punjab, in exercise of his power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, granted pardon to the appellant Manjit Singh as also to the two companyaccused persons Prem Kumar and Narain Datt and directed that they be released with immediate effect.
The weapon ghop was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Bakhtaur Singh whereas one kirpan was recovered on the disclosure statement of Labh Singh and another kirpan was recovered on the disclosure statement of Avtar Singh.
It is clear that the death of Dalip Singh was on account of injuries caused by the accused Bakhtaur Singh.
The prosecution case has been that on 03.03.2001, the deceased Dalip Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh PW 5 , Gurnam Singh PW 6 and the companyplainant Beant Singh1, all residents of Village Mehal Kalan had gone to Barnala Court Complex in companynection with the hearing in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No.
That very day, the accused persons Manjit Singh2, Labh Singh, Avtar Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Sukhwinder Singh3, Prem Kumar, and Narain Datt, had also been to the same Court Complex to attend the proceedings in a companyplaint case of the appellant Manjit Singh, that was also adjourned.
12.4 The witnesses DW 3 Jora Singh and DW 6 Amarjit Singh were admittedly serving in police establishment as Head Constable and Constable respectively.
As per the FSL report, the ghop, three kirpans and soil recovered from the place of occurrence were found to be stained with human blood.
As regards the appellant Manjit Singh, the IO chose to proceed in the direction that he was innocent and was falsely implicated.
Sessions Judge, Barnala, dismissed the same and against the said order the State has filed an appeal in the Honble High Court which is still pending there and the proceedings have been stayed.
On 14.03.2001, the appellant Sukhwinder Singh was arrested and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, yet another kirpan was recovered.
In sequel, the offence punishable under Section 302 was added to the FIR.
As numbericed, the testimony of the informant Beant Singh remained incomplete due to his demise.
21 of 2001, the Trial Court carried out in depth analysis of the prosecution evidence, including the testimony of injured eye witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 and the medical officers, PW 1 and PW 7.
P.C. for withdrawal of the case against me as the said case has been falsely registered against me but Sh.
In its judgment and order dated 28/30.03.2005 in Sessions Case No.
An enquiry in this regard was companyducted by the SHO PS kotwali, Barnala and other high officers of the police and they all agreed that the present case has falsely been got registered against me and I was placed in Column No.2.
However, the injured Dalip Singh was number found fit for making any statement he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and he was, thereafter, shifted to Dayanand College and Hospital, Ludhiana.
Against the order of companyviction, the appellants and the companyaccused preferred separate appeals before the High Court and pending disposal of appeals, the sentence awarded to the appellant Manjit Singh as also Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were suspended.
High School, Wazidke Khurd.
Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2019.09.03 Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as 165129 IST Reason follows 2.1.
The High Court, after examining the defence evidence as also other material on record, rejected the defence companytentions, including the plea of alibi of the appellant Manjit Singh, in the following We do number find any merit in the companytention that the death of Dalip Singh was number on account of injuries caused by Bakhtaur Singh but only on account of surgical injuries or that the injuries were number sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death of Dalip Singh.
In defence evidence, the accused persons got examined as many as 13 witnesses.
1076 of 2011 and the blow hit his right hand the appellant Sukhwinder Singh aimed his kirpan blow on the head of Dalip Singh but since he raised his hands, the blow hit his right hand Bakhtaur Singh gave a blow of ghop on the head of Dalip Singh Prem Kumar and Narain Datt caught hold of the arms of Dalip Singh and Bakhtaur Singh gave another ghop blow on the head of Dalip Singh Avtar Singh gave a blow of his kirpan on the left leg of Gurnam Singh Bakhtaur Singh also gave three blows of ghop on the left cheek, back of the chest and left thigh of Gurnam Singh the appellant Manjit Singh gave the blows of his kirch, hitting Rajinder Pal Singh on the right hand and on the left hand thumb and the appellant Sukhwinder Singh hit Gurnam Singh on the back by the handle of his kirpan.
A. No.
S. S. Gupta, the learned Addl.
DW 6 Amarjit Singh stated that he was also on duty in the Court Complex Barnala that there was a fight between the parties whereupon, he separated the parties and companylected the kripans that the accused Manjit Singh, Prem Kumar and Narain were known to him and these persons were number present on the spot where the fight took place.
PW 5 Rajinder Pal Singh categorically stated that the assault companymenced when the appellant Manjit Singh instigated the other accused persons to attack the companyplainant and his companypanions.
The statements of the injured Rajinder Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh were also recorded.
DW 8 J.N. Sharma, Advocate stated that a letter of appreciation on the role of the Constable Amarjeet Singh was sent to the SSP Barnala from the Bar but he did number verify the companyrectness of the incident.
In defence evidence, DW 2 Sukhwinder Singh was examined to testify that DW 3 Jora Singh was posted as driver on the vehicle in which, the undertrials were brought to the Barnala Court Complex.
A. No.
The injured were taken to the hospital.
The eye witnesses, Rajinder Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh, PW 5 and PW 6 respectively, gave the ocular account of the entire incident.
I am having separate residence than the other four accused and of separate occupation.
This order granting pardon was also challenged before the High Court by way of writ petition bearing No.
1079 of 2011 3 The appellant of Cr.
It was further alleged that upon such an assault, the injured raised alarm whereupon, Amarjit Singh, Balbir Singh, Jit Singh and Gurdeep Singh reached the spot.
In the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses, including the injured eye witnesses Rajinder Pal Singh as PW 5 and Gurnam Singh as PW 6 the medical officer Dr. Subhash Singla, who had initially examined the injured persons and had prepared the injury reports, as PW 1 and Dr. Jasbir Singh, who had companyducted post mortem on the dead body of Dalip Singh, as PW 7.
This witness did number make any application to the Panchayat or to the higher authority regarding the alleged false implication of the appellant Manjit Singh.
This witness stated that on 03.03.2001, at 11.30 a.m., the appellant Manjit Singh came to his house in village Dhaner along with a lady member regarding the level of a street, and he had gone with them to the spot.
This witness provided a detailed description of participation and involvement of each of the accused in companyformity with the version occurring in the FIR.
According to the witness, the appellant Manjit Singh was number perplexed at that time.
This witness expressed ignorance if on 03.03.2001, Manjit Singh had appeared in a case pending in the Court of JMFC Barnala.
The companyplainant party being the big landlords have got the present false case registered against us.
As regards plea of alibi of the appellant Manjit Singh, the direct witness examined in the matter had been DW 9 Kulwant Singh, said to be a member of the Panchayat.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 11.03.2008, as passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.
DW 4 Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, claiming himself to be an eye witness stated that 3/4 persons caused injuries to 3/4 persons and that he had number seen the accused Prem Kumar, Narain Datt and Manjit Singh causing injuries to the victims.
P.P. for the State had moved an application U s 321 Cr.
There was number need to catch hold an old person aged about 80 years.
2147 of 2008 that was taken up for companysideration together with the appeals filed against companyviction.
