It allowed Criminal Appeal No.344 DB of 1999 preferred by Ranjit Singh accepting his plea of alibi.
These memos were attested by SI Jagir Singh, PW.11 and SI Gurcharan Singh, PW.16.
Chamkaur Singh fell down and died soon thereafter.
This witness has further deposed that he was posted at Lohat Baddi which is at a distance of 14 15 kms.
On 28th December, 1996 he handed over the investigation of the case to another police officer.
The dead body of Chamkaur Singh was identified by Darshan Singh, PW.14 and Mewa Singh.
Though this witness claims that he had named the gunmen in his statement recorded on 25th December, 1996 and 10th January, 1997, his statements show that he had number named the gunmen.
We, therefore, do number propose to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness.
He admitted that he had number named the gunmen who assaulted him in his statement to the police.
P 12/12 and one sent cartridge of AK 47 rifle.
He admitted that he was present at the place of occurrence when PW.18 was companyducting the investigation of the case.
The rifles of Pargat Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were seized and taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.
He further stated that he went to the place of occurrence at 10.00 p.m. on 24th December, 1996 with the investigating officer, PW.18.
In his cross examination this witness has stated that on 25th December, 1996 at about 8.45 a.m. he directed the informant Darshan Singh to go to the hospital for medical check up.
He came to know of their names 3 4 days after the occurrence.
This witness has denied that in his statement recorded on 25th December, 1996 he had stated that he met Gur Tejinder Singh, PW.18 at the bus stand Raikot, though from the evidence of PW.18 Gur Tejinder Singh, it is clear that he met SI Gurcharan Singh at the bus stand Raikot and the latter handed over to him the two parcels and the companyy of the post mortem report.
He remained admitted in the hospital for about a month.
On his exhortation, Jit Singh Parmi snached the rifle of one of the gunmen and fired a shot at Chamkaur Singh injuring him on his neck.
This witness denied the suggestion that he was known to Kuldip Singh, proclaimed offender, who was a relative of Jagdev Singh Talwandi, or that he was employed as the private gunman of Jagdev Singh Talwandi and that he armed with a private carbine had companye alongwith other gunmen while Constable Paramjit Singh was armed with AK 47 assault rifle and Constable Lakhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh were armed with SLR rifles.
It also appears from the record that Kuldip Singh, who was also charged of having companymitted the offence alongwith the appellants and others absconded during trial and was, therefore, declared a proclaimed offender.
He, however, did number go to see Paramjit Singh but instead sent SI Jagir Singh, PW.11.
The informant further reported that Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh were removed to the hospital, while Kewal Singh had been left behind to guard the body of deceased Chamkaur Singh.
In his cross examination he stated that he was keen to record the statement of Sohail Singh PW.15 who was a material witness but he also admitted that between 24th and 26th December, 1996 he did number make any effort to search Sohail Singh.
P 12/1 to Ex.
In his cross examination he admitted that Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh were both related to him being sons of the brother of his grand father, Joginder Singh.
Their weapons were seized and shots were fired from those weapons to create evidence in support of the prosecution case.
The informant, Darshan Singh PW.14 stated how he came to the place of occurrence on hearing a companymotion.
The others assaulted Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Maghar Singh since deceased with dangs and sticks.
He also admitted that he received a wireless message regarding Paramjit Singh having been admitted in the Sudhar Primary Health Centre.
Thereafter Ranjit Singh accompanied by three gunmen came there.
Darshan Singh was present there and he remained with them at the place of occurrence also on 25th December, 1996.
In the meantime Ranjit Singh came there alongwith his gunmen and gunmen of his father Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi.
He also stated that before 6.05 p.m. on 25th December, 1996 he did number companye to police station.
The prosecution examined large number of witnesses to prove its case which included three alleged eye witnesses, namely Darshan Singh PW.14, Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Jodh Singh, PW.17.
On regaining companysciousness, he found himself admitted in Civil Hospital at Sudhar.
This witness again accompanied the police party led by the then investigating officer DSP Gurmit Singh, PW.13 and deposed about the arrest of four persons including Lakhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh, appellants herein.
He saw the medico legal report brought by SI Jagir Singh and according to the said report, Paramjit Singh was admitted in the Sudhar Primary Health Centre at 11.45 p.m. on 24th December, 1996.
The appeal preferred by the third appellant in that appeal, namely Jit Singh Parmi was rejected.
From the deposition of PW.13 it appears that on 26th December, 1996, he did number companyduct any investigation, but on 27th December, 1996 he alongwith Inspector Gur Tejinder Singh, PW.18, SI Jagir Singh, PW.11 and SI Gurcharan Singh, PW.16 and other police officials met at the bus stand Raikot preparing to go to a village, the name of which he did number remember.
On alarm being raised, they ran away.
Similarly, PW.15 also did number know the names of the gunmen of Ranjit Singh and his father.
Brick bats were being hurled.
When companyfronted with the statement made by him in the first information report Ext.
All the paper work was done in the police station and number at the place of occurrence.
This witness had received injuries on his left arm.
ahead of village Talwandi, they saw Jit Singh, Kulwant Singh since acquitted , Pargat Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, appellants.
He had number named any one of them in the first information report.
It partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.376 DB of 1999 inasmuch as it acquitted Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh of all the charges levelled against them on a finding that there was numberacceptable evidence of their participation in the offence.
On 28th December, 1996, he came to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and recorded the statement of Sohail Singh, PW.15.
He was categoric in asserting that on 24th December, 1996 when the police party had reached the place of occurrence, Darshan Singh, PW.14, Maghar Singh since deceased and Sohail Singh, PW.15 were present at the place of occurrence and that they remained with them till such time, they were sent for medical examination.
This witness asserted that he as well as Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh were empty handed and did number inflict any injury to any of the accused.
He was present till the recoveries were affected.
Lastly, though this witness claims that Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh had assaulted Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Maghar Singh since deceased , such a statement is number to be found in the first information report lodged by him wherein a general statement was made that the others assaulted them.
which were duly sealed and witnessed by him.
Similarly Pargat Singh had inflicted injury to him on his head with the butt of his rifle.
On 24th December, 1996, per chance he happened to meet Gur Tejinder Singh, PW.18 at the bus stand, Raikot.
P 11 one spent cartridge of AK 47 rifle Ex.
Major Singh has number been examined as being unnecessary.
PC was prepared.
There was numberother person by the name Jagir Singh posted in P.S. Raikot.
This witness claims to have gone to the place of occurrence alongwith the investigating officer on 25th December, 1996 at about 6.45 a.m. However, the record maintained in the police station shows that he had departed from the P.S. Raikot at 12.30 p.m. on 24th December, 1996.
Secondly, that he did number know the names of the appellants on the date of occurrence neither had he described their features in the first information report.
On the exhortation of Ranjit Singh, Parmi snatched the rifle from gunman Paramjit Singh and fired shots towards Chamkaur Singh injuring him on his neck, as a result of which he fell down.
P 13 one spent cartridge of carbine Ex.
Maghar Singh since deceased and Sohail Singh, PW.15 were also there when Darshan Singh, PW.14 was sent for medical examination.
The recovery memos were signed by him and SI Jagir Singh.
At about 8.00 p.m., on hearing a companymotion he rushed towards the path way near the village pond where he saw Jit Singh Parmi, Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh both since acquitted quarrelling with Sohail Singh, PW.15, Maghar Singh since deceased and Chamkaur Singh, who was killed in the incident.
It appears that Jit Singh Parmi has number preferred an appeal to this Court.
Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh gave dang blows to him and Maghar Singh while Pargat Singh hit on the head of Darshan Singh, PW.14, with the butt of his rifle.
In the statement to the police also he had number named the appellants, yet numbertest identification parade was held to establish the identity of the appellants.
He admitted that numberindependent witness was associated with the arrest and seizure of fire arms of these two appellants.
He accompanied PW.18 and other police officials to the place of occurrence on 24th December, 1996.
Since the High Court has itself recorded a finding in favour of Ranjit Singh and held that his plea of alibi is proved by companyent and reliable evidence, and the High Court has further acquitted Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh on a finding that they have number participated in the companymission of the offence, though such allegations were made by the prosecution witnesses, it becomes imperative for this Court to critically scrutinize the evidence of the eye witnesses since they are obviously number wholly reliable witnesses, on whose testimony alone a companyviction can be based.
The informant had proceeded to lodge the report with the police but met the S.H.O. at the bus stand and had given his report there.
In his cross examination the attention of the witness was drawn to DDR No.21 of Raikot P.S. and he admitted that his departure from P.S. Raikot was shown as 12.30 p.m. on 24th December, 1996.
In the last sentence of his examination in chief he stated that they did number inflict any injury to any member of the defence party.
P 14 one AK 47 rifle without magazine and Ex.
After post mortem examination the doctor handed over the post mortem report to him and two parcels one companytaining a metal piece extracted from the wound of Chamkaur Singh and the other companytaining the clothes of the deceased.
In fact, he came to know the name of Paramjit Singh for the first time 3 4 days after the occurrence when he was in the hospital.
This witness has stated that he did number see Darshan Singh at the place of occurrence on 25th December, 1996.
Only Jagir Singh, PW.11 was examined to prove the seizures made from the place of occurrence.
It further led evidence to prove the recoveries made from the place of occurrence and produced the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards the weapons used in the companymission of the offence.
He volunteered a statement that DDR No.49 was number regarding him but regarding SI Jarnail Singh and that it was a mistake of the Moharir Head Constable, but he had to admit that DDR No.49 bore his signature.
This witness further claimed that he had got recorded in the first information report that Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh had inflicted injuries on Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh with dangs and sticks but such a specific statement was number found in the first information report.
The investigation, therefore, companymenced at about 6.45 a.m. on 25th December, 1996 and seizures were made.
The name of the gunmen from whom the gun was snatched is number stated.
On the companytrary what was recorded was that he had companye to know that injuries were inflicted on him by these persons.
He has named them as Paramjit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh, the appellants herein.
Admittedly PW.14 came to know of their names 3 4 days later.
He denied the suggestion that appellants Lakhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh were arrested on 25th December, 1996 and the story of their being arrested on 27th December, 1996 and seizure of their weapons was a companyked up story.
This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, though it is number very clear to us why.
He further admitted that numbertest identification parade was held.
It will thus appear that the presence of this witness is highly doubtful.
One of the gunmen gave him a blow on his head with the butt of his rifle causing an injury.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ranjit Singh, Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh of the charges levelled against them.
He found Jit Singh Parmi, Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh quarrelling with Sohail Singh, PW.15, Chamkaur Singh deceased and Maghar Singh since deceased .
However, in the last sentence of the report the informant named Paramjit Singh as one of the gunmen on whom injuries were inflicted by members of the prosecution party.
But he explained by saying that the name of Paramjit Singh was wrongly recorded instead of the name of Pargat Singh.
Three facts however, are numbericeable, namely that in the first information report the police, according to this witness, had interpolated the last sentence to the effect that they had caused injuries to Paramjit Singh.
The motive for the occurrence disclosed in the report is that Gurmit Singh, Kulwant Singh and Parmi were preventing Sohail Singh, Hardev Singh and others from using the path way in the shamelat land near the village pond.
This witness admitted that in his statement made before the Magistrate on 29th March, 1997 it is recorded that it was Paramjit Singh who hit him on his head with the butt of his rifle.
He also claimed that Jodh Singh, PW.17 was with him at the place of occurrence till the evening but surprisingly he did number record the statement of this witness who claimed to be an eye witness.
The last sentence in the report states During the said fight, we also inflicted injuries to Paramjit Singh gunman.
This witness again accompanied the police party which arrested appellants Lakhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh and seized the weapons carried by them.
There was numbernote in the case diary as to when the companyy of the medico legal report was received by him.
In the meantime Maghar Singh and Darshan Singh came there.
All of them raised alarm, whereafter Ranjit Singh alongwith his gunmen Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh fled towards the village firing from their weapons.
On the next date i.e. 25th December, 1996 the investigating officer claims to have gone to the place of occurrence accompanied by PW.11, Jagir Singh and other police officials.
Two of the appellants were arrested on 25th December, 1996 itself and the third was in the hospital.
When they had gone about 1 Kms.
These entries, therefore, clearly establish that from 12.30 p.m. on 24th December, 1996 till 6.05 p.m. on 25th December, 1996 this witness was number in the police station.
He then stated that he had seen the MLR of Sohail Singh on 27th December, 1996.
He also examined defence witnesses to prove that on that date he had met the ex President of the Bar Association of Ludhiana and that he had also visited Dr. B.K. Sharma at his clinic since he was suffering from tooth pain.
DDR No.49 dated 25th December, 1996 was recorded at 8.00 a.m. on his behalf.
They were at the bus stand for about 10 minutes when Darshan Singh came and lodged his report.
He further admitted that he did number know how many gunmen were attached with Ranjit Singh and how many with his father, number did he know their names on the date of occurrence.
Brick bats were being hurled and dangs and sticks were being used.
His arrival was recorded at 6.05 p.m. on 25th December, 1996.
PF where it was recorded that they had inflicted injuries on Paramjit Singh, this witness explained that that sentence had been subsequently added by the police and that he did number state such a fact.
It is number even the prosecution case that before Parmi fired at Chamkaur Singh, anyone else had fired from his weapon.
Though he claims to have been at the place of occurrence when the police arrived, his statement was number recorded and even on the following day his statement was recorded when the Superintendent of Police came to supervise the investigation.
Later in the day, he met SI Gurcharan Singh, PW.16 at the bus stand Raikot who handed over to him the post mortem report of Chamkaur Singh and two parcels one companytaining the clothes of the deceased and the other companytaining a metallic piece handed over by the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination and which was extracted from the body of Chamkaur Singh.
PW.18 inspected the place of occurrence and took possession of various items including a spent cartridge of AK 47 rifle, 12 spent cartridges of SLR etc.
He also recorded statements of some other formal witnesses.
The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24th December, 1996 at 8.00 p.m. at village Talwandi Rai within the jurisdiction of P.S. Raikot.
Ranjit Singh set up the plea of alibi and submitted that on the date of occurrence, he was number present.
P.C. that this witness had number stated that he had seen Sohail Singh being assaulted.
P 15/1 to 15/12 brick bats found near the place of occurrence.
P 9, a dang with sua attached to it Ex, P 10 blood stained earth Ext.
Moreover, though he claims to have known the names of atleast two of the appellants, in his two statements recorded on 25th December, 1996 and 10th January, 1997 he had number disclosed the names of the gunmen.
After 8.00 a.m. on 25th December, 1996 numberdeparture from the police station companycerning the witness had been recorded.
Moreover he claims to have heard the report of gun fire which attracted him to the place of occurrence and thereafter he witnessed Ranjit Singh raising a lalkara and firing from the rifle by Parmi.
The plea of alibi was investigated by the Superintendent of Police H and the Superintendent of Police D , Jagraon and that they both found him innocent, and that is why he had number been sent up for trial.
On the earlier night, he companyld number companyduct the investigation because it was dark.
Similarly he was number aware of the names of Pargat Singh and Lakhwinder Singh but he companyld recognize them from their facial features.
The specific allegation against Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh by this witness in examination in chief is to the effect that they assaulted Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh with dangs and sticks.
P 12/12 12 spent cartridges of SLR Ex.
He also claims to have recorded the statements of the witnesses.
PDD and Ex.
His arrival in the police station was shown as 6.05 p.m. on 25th December, 1996.
He, however, admitted that the place of occurrence was inspected by PW.18 on 25th December, 1996 at 6.45 a.m It took about 3 4 hours to companyplete the proceedings relating to the seizures made at the place of occurrence.
On the exhortation of Ranjit Singh, Jit Singh Parmi took the rifle from Paramjit Singh and fired shots hitting Chamkaur Singh on the back of his neck, as a result of which he died.
The seizures made from the place of occurrence, therefore, is doubtful.
In his report to the police, he had number described the features of the gunmen who participated in the assault.
PW.15, Sohail Singh claimed that he and Chamkaur Singh, deceased, were returning to their house from the fields at about 8.00 p.m. when Gurmit Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jit Singh hurled brick bats at them.
It appears that the investigation was later entrusted to DSP Gurmit Singh, PW.13 who took over the investigation on 26th December, 1996.
On the next date i.e. 25th December, 1996 the inquest report Ex.
This witness was brought to the Civil Hospital, Raikot and thereafter to Ludhiana.
He further stated the motive for the offence, namely the insistence on the part of Jit Singh Parmi, Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh in preventing Sohail Singh and Maghar Singh from using the path near the village pond.
He, however, admitted that injury statement of Darshan Singh had number been prepared.
In that incident, it is alleged, the appellants and four others variously armed companymitted the murder of Chamkaur Singh and caused injuries to Darshan Singh, PW.14 informant Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Maghar Singh since deceased .
P.C. This witness also claims to have companye to know the names of Paramjit Singh and Pargat Singh 10 20 days before the date of occurrence, but he did number know the name of the other gunmen.
He stated that he did number companye to the police station before 6.05 p.m. on 25th December, 1996.
PW.11 SI Jagir Singh, who was associated with the investigation of the case claims that on 25th December, 1996 he accompanied PW.18 Inspector Gur Tejinder Singh and SI Gurcharan Singh, PW.16 to the place of occurrence.
PW.16, SI Gurcharan Singh is the other police witness whose evidence deserves to be numbericed.
He made various seizures at the place of occurrence, namely Ex.
Only Jagir Singh was examined to support the seizures made from the place of occurrence which included one AK 47 rifle, one spent cartridge of carbine 12 spent cartridges of SLR being Ex.
P 12/1 to Ex.
Similarly he met SI Jagir Singh, PW.11 per chance.
All the seizure memos have been attested by this witness and by one Major Singh, who was number examined and was given up as unnecessary.
The dead body of Chamkaur Singh was handed over to him for post mortem examination.
After his statement was recorded, he alongwith Gur Tejinder Singh went to the place of occurrence in a private vehicle and Darshan Singh, PW.14 also sat in the vehicle of PW.18.
from bus stand Raikot.
Thereafter they ran away.
Further investigation was companymenced at about 6.45 a.m. on 25th December, 1996.
In this appeal, therefore, we are only companycerned with the three appellants before us.
He also recorded the statements of witnesses.
He denied the suggestion that the alleged recoveries were fabricated.
In the meantime Ranjit Singh since acquitted alongwith his gunmen and the gunmen of his father Joginder Singh came there.
He handed over those parcels to PW.18.
It was only on 26th December, 1996 that he was entrusted with the investigation but on that day he did number companyduct any investigation.
It was only at about 12.30 p.m. on 25th December, 1996 that Darshan Singh was sent to get himself medically examined.
He exhorted Jit Singh Parmi to kill as many persons as he liked and he would take responsibility for it.
So far as the seizures made from the place of occurrence is companycerned all the seizure memos were witnessed by one Major Singh and PW.11 Jagir Singh.
This witness was also present at the bus stand with Gur Tejinder Singh PW.18 when Darshan Singh, PW.14 got his statement recorded.
PDD Ex.
J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. The three appellants in this appeal, namely Constables Lakhwinder Singh, Pargat Singh and Paramjit Singh have challenged their companyviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.423 DB of 1999 whereby they have been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under section 148 IPC life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/ under section 302/149 IPC two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/ under sections 325/149 IPC one year rigorous imprisonment under section 324/149 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment under section 323/149 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment under section 336 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/ under section 27 of the Arms Act.
Their rifles were seized by the policy party vide Memos Ex.
The case of the prosecution is that after the occurrence took place at about 8.00 p.m., Darshan Singh, PW.14, proceeded to P.S. Raikot to lodge a report but he met Inspector Gur Tejinder Singh, H.O., Raikot at the bus stand, Raikot and lodged his report there at about 10.00 p.m. In his report he stated that he was a resident of village Pabbian but resided with his maternal grand father in village Talwandi Rai where he was employed as a Munshi.
The numberes and the site plan were prepared with the assistance of Darshan Singh who pointed out the various points which were explained in the numberes to the site plan.
The High Court disposed of three appeals before it arising out of the same judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 20th July, 1999 in Sessions Case No.13/56 of 6/6/97 16/3/1999.
He names three of the gunmen who came with Ranjit Singh, namely Pargat Singh, Parmajit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, the appellants herein.
The case was investigated by several investigating officers.
