Nazar Singh Singh v. Haryana State of Haryana
Case Details
(O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 1 ) FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) CRA ate of Decision: 09.04.2025 Date of Decision: Nazar Singh Singh … Appellant Versus Haryana State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. B.S.Rana, Senior Advocate, with B.S.Rana, Senior Advocate, with , Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Nazar Singh assails judgment dated 21.02.2004 Nazar Singh Additional 21.02.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, wherein the trial Court while holding him Sessions Judge, guilty of wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of having committed offences under Section having committed offence 25 of under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentenced him as under: the Arms Act Offence Offence Imprisonment Fine In default Under Section Under Section 302 IPC 302 IPC Under Section Under Section 25 of the Arms 5 of the Arms Act Act Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- RI for 6 months Life imprisonment RI for 3 years Rs.2000/- RI for one month RI for one month 2. The matter arises out of FIR No.
Facts
144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police matter arises out of FIR No.144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police 144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police Station Matlaudha, under Sections 302/120 Station Matla B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms , under Sections 302/120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at the instance of at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh. Mukhtiar . The translated gist of Mukhtiar VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 2 ) Singh’s statement statement (Ex.PE) on the basis of which FIR was lodged on the basis of which FIR was lodged reads reads as under: I am resident of village Uriana Kalan and am an agriculturist. “I am resident of We are three village Uriana Kalan and am an agriculturist. We are three Singh and brothers and own 27 killas of land. The eldest of all is Richpal Singh and brothers and own 27 killas of land. The brothers and own 27 killas of land. The younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us Singh of village Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us Singh of village My father had distributed the land equally since the last about 10 years. My father had distributed the land equally My father had distributed the land equally since the last about 10 ye amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used to father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used sferred equally amongst tell him that after his death, the land would be transferred equally amongst tell him that after his death, the land would be tran tell him that after his death, the land would be tran there all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and there all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and Nazar Singh, used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. Nazar Singh, used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. brother-in-law (sala) of Lakhvinder Singh brother used to come to our village of Lakhvinder Singh used to come to our village y and he also used to compel my father to get the share of frequently and he also used to compel my father to get the share of y and he also used to compel my father to get the share of frequentl Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. My brother Richpal Singh, Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. in respect of land falling to his share, had entered into an agreement to sell respect of land with had entered into an agreement to sell with Surjit Singh Dhariwal. Today, I alongwith Surjit Singh Dhariwal law Angrej Singh, . Today, I alongwith my father-in-law Angrej Singh, one of our relatives Raj Singh and my father Karnail Singh w one of our relatives Raj Singh proceeding my father Karnail Singh was proceeding to Tehsil office at Ma for getting the sale deed registered. We Tehsil office at Matlaudha for getting the sale deed registered. We for getting the sale deed registered. We reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was going a little ahead of us and ng a little ahead of us and when he turned from Shop No.62, Grain when he turned from Shop No.62, Grain Market Matlaudha, towards the Tehsil office, Ma Market Nazar Singh, towards the Tehsil office, Matlaudha, Nazar Singh, brother-in-law (sala) of my brother, suddenly brother from the back of ) of my brother, suddenly appeared from the back of stack of wheat bags and ran towards my father and took out a pistol stack of wheat bags and and shot ran towards my father and took out a pistol and shot upon which my father at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist upon which my father at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist him, but he succumbed fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend to him, but he succumbed fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend to the fire-arm injury. Nazar Singh ran away from t to the fire he spot towards forest injury. Nazar Singh ran away from the spot towards forest alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with have witnessed the Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh have witnessed the Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh occurrence. After leaving my father-in occurrence. law Angrej Singh and Raj Singh in-law Angrej Singh and Raj Singh was proceedings towards police station you met near the dead body, when I was proceedings towards police station you met was proceedings towards police station you met near the dead body me near the gate of grain market. I have me near the gate of grain market. I got my statement recorded, which have got my statement recorded, which is correct. Sd/- Mukhtiar Singh.” is correct. Sd/ VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 3 ) 3. 11 Rattan Singh, the same After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW-11 Rattan Singh, the same After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW 11 Rattan Singh was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW-11 Rattan Singh was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW proceeded to the spot and conducted to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings. Blood stained soil inquest proceedings. Blood stained soil was lifted from the spot and was prepared into a parcel. was lifted from the spot and was prepared into a parcel. Statements of Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body witnesses were recorded mortem examination. of Karnail Singh was sent for post-mortem examination. of Karnail Singh was sent for post 4. Accused Nazar Singh was arrested on 03.07.2002 Accused Nazar Singh was arrested on search of accused 03.07.2002. Upon search of accused Nazar Singh, a pistol Singh, a pistol .315 bore alongwith 4 live cartridges and 1 empty .315 bore alongwith 4 live cartridges and 1 empty cartridge w taken into possession vide recovery were recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK. Co-accused Lakhvinder Singh was arrested on memo Ex.PK. accused Lakhvinder Singh was arrested on 07.07.2002. 5. both the Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against both the Upon conclusion of investigation, challan Upon conclusion of investigation, challan in the Court of accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh on 04.09.2002 in the Court of accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, who committed the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.09.2002 Court of Sessions the learned Additional 25.09.2002 where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused on 30.10.2002 for offence punishable under Section 30.10.2002 B/302 IPC. Accused punishable under Section 120-B/302 IPC. Accused Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 PWs The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:- Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the PW-1 Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under sanction order (Ex.PA) [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under sanction order (
Legal Reasoning
recovered from the accused, but it is well settled that it is not safe to overed from the accused, but it is well settled that it is not safe to base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 9 ) 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1977(2) SCC 210 Magan Bihari Lal s. The State 1977(2) SCC 210 Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State s as regards evidentiary value , while referring to earlier precedents as regards evidentiary value , while referring to earlier precedent of Punjab, while referring to earlier precedent of expert’s opinion held as under: of expert’s opinion held as under: “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a precedential authority which handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which handwriting expert. There is a profusion of handwriting expert. There is a profusion of holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it Ram Chandra has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in that it is unsafe to treat expert v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme Court again that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive Court 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive Court 1728 because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in where it was Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 529 where it was Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Cou Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Cou pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider rroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial rroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial whether it is co evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of Fakhruddin v. State of M. P. AIR expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M. P. AIR expert opinion in regard to handwriting in expert opinion in regard to handwriting in 1967 Supreme Court 1326 and if uttered 1967 Supreme Court 1326 a note of caution pointing out that it and if uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.” see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circum see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circum 18. Hon’ble the Apex Court in 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab Hon’ble the Apex Court in 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab wherein the accused had been Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat wherein the accused had been Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the pert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the basis of report of Ballistic Expert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the pert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the basis of report of Ballistic Ex conviction while holding as under: conviction while holding as under: VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was “24. Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was ( 10 ) made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole was fired from one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole was fired from premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, 34 of the Indian was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The e itself opined that the recovery having been made after learned trial judge itself opined that the recovery having been made after e itself opined that the recovery having been made after learned trial judg nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of e to hold that the murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possible to hold that the murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possibl murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possibl appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” Code.” 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022(8) SCC 536, Ravi Sharma State SCC 536, Ravi Sharma Vs. State , while setting aside conviction wherein the (Government of NCT of Delhi), while setting aside conviction wherein the , while setting aside conviction wherein the (Government of NCT of Delhi) prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: ientific evidence in the The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a scientific evidence in the The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a sc “18. The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a sc nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing offence.” the offence.” 20. The instant case is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead The instant case is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead rather is a case where the evidence led by evidence in support of its case, but rather is a case where the evidence led by rather is a case where the evidence led by evidence in support of its case, but the prosecution in the shape of eye-witnesses i.e. PW the prosecution in the shape of eye Singh witnesses i.e. PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW-6 Angrej Singh and PW (complainant), PW have stated in sharp 6 Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh have stated in sharp contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 11 ) substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact absence of any other substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact absence of witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base that the eye-witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base that the eye conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to recovery of the weapon from the accused o recovery of the weapon from the accused Consequently, or as regards its use. Consequently the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. sustain and is liable to be set aside. and The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated 21.02.2004 and The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated 21. The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated order of sentence dated 28.02.2004 passed by learned order of sentence dated 2 Sessions passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat Panipat are hereby set aside. The appellant acquitted of all the are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand charges framed against him. His bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand charges framed against discharged. 22. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be /revision, as dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal/revision, as dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal the case may be. the case may be GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (GURVINDER SINGH GILL JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No 09.04.2025 Vimal VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, IAS, District Magistrate, Panipat. IAS, District Magistrate, Panipat VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 4 ) PW-2 Constable Krishan Kumar who is a formal witness, tendered into Constable Krishan Kumar, who is a formal witness, tendered into who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB, wherein he deposed that evidence his affidavit Ex. 17.07.2002, , wherein he deposed that on 17.07.2002, MHC Ram Kumar had handed over to him MHC Ram Kumar five sealed parcels had handed over to him five sealed parcels alongwith sample seal for depositing the same in the alon FSL, Madhuban, for depositing the same in the FSL, Madhuban which he accordingly deposited the same day which he the the same day and that as long as the his possession, the same were not tampered with. parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with his possession, the same were not tampered with parcels remained in PW-3 HC Ram Kumar, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his HC Ram Kumar, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PC, wherein he deposed that affidavit Ex. he was he deposed that on 02.07.2002, he was posted as MHC, P.S. Matlaudha and that on posted as MHC, P.S. the same day, SI Rattan and that on the same day, SI Rattan parcels containing blood stained earth Singh had deposited with him parcels containing blood stained earth parcels containing blood stained earth Singh had and clothes of the deceased and that on 03.07.2002 and , SI Rattan Singh and that on 03.07.2002, SI Rattan Singh deposited parcels containing pistol deposited alongwith one empty parcels containing pistol .315 bore alongwith one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges. cartridge and 4 li He further deposed that on He further deposed that on 17.07.2002, all the parcels were handed over to Constable 17.07.2002, Krishan handed over to Constable Krishan Kumar for depositing the same in the Kumar ere for depositing the same in the FSL, Madhuban, which were accordingly deposited the same day accordingly same deposited the same day and that as long as the same remained in his possession, the same w remained in his possess ion, the same were not tampered with. PW-4 Constable Jagbir Singh Constable Jagbir Singh stated that on 24.07.2002, he had visited the stated that on 24.07.2002, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in Mukhtiar Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He the witness-box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He the witness stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that rate share his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any separate share his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any sepa his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any sepa nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody from my father nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody from stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at else. He categorically stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at else. He categorically his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission examine of the Court, the Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine of the Court, the Public Prosecuto of the Court, the Public Prosecuto the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various documents prepared during the course of investigation. documents prepared during the course of investigation. documents prepared during the course of investigation. PW-6 Angrej Singh, who is father Angrej Singh, who is father-in-law of the complainant and ha been law of the complainant and had been did not support the case of prosecution at cited as an eye-witness also did not support the case of prosecution at did not support the case of prosecution at cited as an eye all and was declared hostile. all and was declared hostile. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 5 ) PW-7 Raj Singh Raj Singh, who was also cited as an eye witness by the prosecution, , who was also cited as an eye-witness by the prosecution, did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was examined on behalf of declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of declared hostile and was permitted to be cross declared hostile and was permitted to be cross the prosecution. the prosecution. PW-8 Richpal Singh Richpal Singh, brother of the complainant , also did not say a word , brother of the complainant, also did not say a word against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs PW-9 Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same as Ex.P11 to P13. as Ex.P1 to P10 and negatives as Ex.P11 to P13. as Ex.P1 to P10 PW-10 Dr. Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, who alongwith Dr. Jai Parkash who mortem alongwith Dr. Jai Parkash had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karnail Singh on 02.07.200 examination on the dead body of examination on the dead body of .07.2002, proved the post-mortem report as Ex.P proved the post , wherein he described the mortem report as Ex.PK, wherein he described the He stated that as per their opinion injuries found on the dead body. He stated that as per their opinion He stated that as per their opinion injuries found on the dead body. shock and haemorrhage particularly on the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage particularly on shock and haemorrhage particularly on the He account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. He account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. foreign metallic body was found in the categorically stated that a foreign metallic body was found in the foreign metallic body was found in the categorically stated that a , which had been removed from the body and identified the bullet, which had been removed from the , which had been removed from the body and identified the dead body, as Ex.P18. dead body SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, PW-11 SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant on 02.07.2002 and had conducted inquest proceedi complainant on ngs. 02.07.2002 and had conducted inquest proceedings. He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of investigation. investigation. PW-12 Constable Dharambir, who is a formal witness, tendered into Constable Dharambir, who is a formal witness, tendered into who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PP, wherein he deposed that evidence his affidavit Ex. on 02.07.2002, , wherein he deposed that on 02.07.2002, s to the Illaqa Magistrate and to had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to had delivered the special report he had delivered the special report other senior officers. other senior officers 03.07.2002, he was posted at ASI Krishan Chander stated that on 03.07.2002, he was posted at ASI Krishan Chander stated that on PW-13 ASI Krishan Chander stated that on as associated with the investigation of Police Station Matlaudha and was associated with the investigation of as associated with the investigation of Police Station Ma VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 6 ) SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of the case alongwith SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of the case alongwith longwith cartridges Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol alongwith cartridges Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol a Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol a from him. from him. 7. The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PT/1. and Ex.PT/1. 8. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement Upon closure of the Nazar prosecution evidence, statements of both accused Nazar recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., Singh and Lakhvinder Singh were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., Singh and Lakhvinder Singh wherein they they denied the entire case of prosecution false of prosecution and pleaded false implication. The accused, however, did not lead any evide implication. their The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. 9. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the The learned trial Court, upon brought on record, marshalling the evidence brought on record, while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against held that while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against under Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty for offences under Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of Section 302 IPC and Karnail Singh and accordingly sentenced him Karnail Singh and him vide impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, while assailing the impugned judgment, sely been implicated in the present case and that submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that sely been implicated in the present case and that submitted that since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none of 5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW-6 5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW the alleged eye-witnesses i.e. PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW the alleged eye Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh or even PW Angrej Singh and PW Singh, another son or even PW-8 Richpal Singh, another son had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned of the deceased, had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned of the deceased, judgment was unsustainable. judgment was unsustainable. 11. Opposing the Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that apparently it is a appeal, learned State counsel submitted that apparently it is a er the witnesses and case where the accused/appellant had been able to win over the witnesses and case where the accused/appellant had been able to win ov case where the accused/appellant had been able to win ov VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 7 ) that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused t of FSL particularly as regards opinion stands duly established and the report of FSL particularly as regards opinion t of FSL particularly as regards opinion stands duly established and the repo that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, and as such, the findings of omplicity of the appellant is clearly evident and as such, the findings of omplicity of the appellant is clearly eviden the complicity of the appellant is clearly eviden the trial Court did not warrant any interference. the trial Court did not warrant any interference. the trial Court did not warrant any interference. 12. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. it is a case of homicidal death, wherein Karnail Singh (deceased) wa it is a case of homicidal death, wherein 13. Since it is a case of homicidal death, wherein was from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the alleged to have been fired at from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the alleged to have been fired he dead body prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. The dead body prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. mortem examination. of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post-mortem examination. of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Y.P.Singhmar The prosecution has examined PW Dr. Y.P.Singhmar, who alongwith Dr. mortem examination on the dead body of Jai Parkash had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of mortem examination on the dead body of Jai Parkash Karnail Singh on 02.07.2002. PW-10 Dr. Karnail Singh on proved the post- Dr. Y.P.Singhmar proved the post , wherein he described the injuries found on the dead mortem report as Ex.PK, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead , wherein he described the injuries found on the dead mortem report as Ex.P body as under as under: “1. of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, A lacerated wound of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, A lacerated wound 1.5 cm left to mid line at level of 4th thoracic 1.5 cm left to mid line was blackened on thoracic vertebra. Wound was blackened on probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction upto 2nd rib near its sterna lend. In between, there was upto 2 posteriorly . In between, there was hematoma posteriorly y. There was a tear in pericardium left around the wound extending anteriorly. There was a tear in pericardium left y. There was a tear in pericardium left around the wound extending anteriorl and upper portion of left lung was also ventrical and left atrium were ruptured and upper portion of left lung was also and upper portion of left lung was also ventrical and left atrium were injured. Pleura was torn on left side. A metallic foreign body was injured. subcutaneously fracturing 2nd thoracic rib left side near subcutaneously fracturing 2 embedded was torn on left side. A metallic foreign body was embedded its medial end. Metallic thoracic rib left side near its medial end. Metallic foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. empty Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were empty Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were and injured as described.” and injured as described. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ( 8 ) 14. PW-10 further stated that further stated that in their opinion shock and in their opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with was blackened and inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which was blackened and inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which , a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a upon dissection, a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a , a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a upon dissection metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had been removed. When PW-10 was shown the metallic been removed. When PW body, he stated 10 was shown the metallic foreign body, he stated the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The that it was the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The witness was briefly cross examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examination so as substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross-examination so as substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. to either doubt 15. From the aforesaid statement mortem report, it is evident that the From the aforesaid statement and the post-mortem report, it is evident that the mortem report, it is evident that the arm shot. While the medical opinion cause of death was on account of fire-arm shot. While the medical opinion arm shot. While the medical opinion cause of death was on account of fire would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would look for substantive evidence. look for substantive evidence. 16. Although it is the case of p rosecution that the occurrence in question had it is the case of prosecution that the occurrence in question had rosecution that the occurrence in question had 5 Mukhtiar Singh), but also been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh), but also been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW by PW-6 Angrej Singh and PW 6 Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh none of the said witnesses, 7 Raj Singh, but none of the said witnesses while in the witness-box, supported the case of prosecution. while in the witness None of them supported the case of prosecution. None of them enmity amongst stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or enmity amongst stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or Although the report of the them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. Although the report of the them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the pistol rec