The High Court
Case Details
CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh At Chandigarh CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) CR Baljit Singh Baljit Singh Punjab State of Punjab Versus … Appellant ... Respondent CRA CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) 1. 2. Dinesh Chaturvedi Dinesh Chaturvedi Punjab State of Punjab Versus … Appellant ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 13.02.2025 Date of Decision 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: R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-85- -DB-2005. Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-337 337-2005. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER 1. This judgment shall dispose of above is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned mentioned two appeals, wherein passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment dated 14.01.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment dated 14.01.2005 being assailed. Vide impugned judgment, both the Ludhiana, is being assailed. Vide impugned judgment, both the Ludhiana, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & Dinesh Chaturvedi have been held appellants namely Baljit Singh and Dinesh Chaturvedi have been held appellants namely Baljit Singh and ( 2 ) guilty and sentenced as under: guilty and sentenced as under: Accused/Appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi Accused/Appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Under Section and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 302 IPC further RI for six months Under Section Under Section the of 27(i) 27(i) the of Arms Act - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a and in default of payment of fine to undergo fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months Accused/Appellant Baljit Singh Accused/Appellant Baljit Singh Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Under Section and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 302/34 IPC further RI for six months 2. 140 dated 30.03.1999 registered at Police The matter arises out of FIR No.140 dated 30.03.1999 registered at Police The matter arises out of FIR No. Station Sadar Ludhiana, under Sections 302/34 IPC Station Sadar Ludhiana, under Sections 302/34 IPC (Ex.PA/1) on the statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on basis of statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on statement (Ex.PA) of Vinod Kumar, wherein he stated that on , he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece 30.03.1999, he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece , he alongwith his wife Shaveta, daughter Tanya and niece isha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Tata isha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Alisha had gone to Ludhiana in connection domestic work in their Sumo bearing registration No.HR-01F-5676. Sumo bearing registration No. 5676. While on their way-back at about 5.00 PM when they were near Sutlej from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, at about 5.00 PM when they were near Sutlej from Ludhiana to Jalandhar Bridge, a police official signaled them Bridge, a police official them to stop the vehicle and he accordingly stopped the same. The police official namely PHG Dinesh accordingly stopped the same. The police off accordingly stopped the same. The police off Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was Chaturvedi asked him to come out of the vehicle and while he was alighting from the same, another police official namely C-1 Baljit Singh, alighting from the same, another police official namely C alighting from the same, another police official namely C shouted loudly telling him to come out failing who was standing nearby, shouted loudly telling him to come out failing who was standing nearby, . While he was coming out of the vehicle, both the which they will shoot. While he was coming out of the vehicle, both the which they will shoot his Tata Sumo and one of the shots hit his wife said police officials shot at his Tata Sumo and one of the shots hit his wife said police officials VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 3 ) On account of their hue & cry, Shaveta on the right side of her chest. On account of their hue & cry, Shaveta on the right side of her chest. several persons were attracted to the spot, who suggested the complainant several persons were attracted to the spot, who sugges several persons were attracted to the spot, who sugges to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta was to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta to rush his wife to hospital. Although the complainant’s wife Shaveta to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the taken to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the to hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries upon reaching the The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who hospital. The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who The complainant alleged that both the aforesaid officials, who
Legal Reasoning
had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. had fired shots killing his wife, were under influence of liquor. 3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the police swung Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the swung into action and visited the place of occurrence and also the hospital. Since the complainant’s wife place of occurrence and also the hospital. S place of occurrence and also the hospital. S had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got had already expired, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was got Statements of the witnesses were subjected to post-mortem examination. Statements of the witnesses were subjected to post recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rifle allotted to Dinesh recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges as well as Chaturvedi alongwith one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges as well as Chaturvedi along rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were taken into rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were rife allotted to Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges were possession and sent for ballistic examination. possession and sent for ballistic examination. 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against challan was presented against both the accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana accused/appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 26.06.1999 , who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide 26.06.1999, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.08.1999. Learned Additional order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana cused for offence punishable under framed charges against both the accused for offence punishable under framed charges against both the ac 07.09.1999. Separate charges for offence punishable Section 302 IPC on 07.09.1999. Separate charges for offence punishable Section 302 IPC on under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on 24.05.2000. under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act were also framed on The accused, however, pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The accused and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 17 The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:- The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & PW-1 Vinod Kumar (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations got Vinod Kumar (complainant) stated in tune with the allegations got ( 4 ) recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of recorded by him in the FIR broadly to the effect that on the day of alongwith his family was returning from occurrence while he alongwith his family was returning from occurrence while he Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. Ludhiana to Jalandhar, he was signaled to stop his vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo by the accused and was told to come out of the vehicle a Sumo by the accused and was told to come out of the vehicle and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards and while he was getting out, the accused started firing towards them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. them and that a shot fired by PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi hit his wife. He stated that Baljit Singh also fired a shot, but it missed. He stated that Balji Singh also fired a shot, but it missed. He stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could stated that although his wife was taken to hospital, but she could not survive. not survive. PW-2 Dr. S.K.Sharma, alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan Dr. S.K.Sharma, who alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan mortem examination on the dead body of had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of had conducted post Shaveta on 31.03.1999, proved the post Shaveta on 31.03.1999, proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PD, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body of Shaveta and opined that the cause of death was Shaveta and opined that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which mortem and were sufficient to cause immediate death in were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause immediate death in were ante the ordinary course of nature. the ordinary course of nature. Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and PW-3 Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and Alisha aged about 9 years, who is niece of the complainant and was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was travelling alongwith him and the deceased on the fateful day, was produced in the Court and the learned trial Court after was produced in the Court and the was produced in the Court and the ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the ascertaining her competence to make a statement recorded the 30.03.1999, while she alongwith same, wherein she stated that on 30.03.1999, while she alongwith same, wherein she stated that on her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter of her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter her maternal uncle, maternal aunt Shaveta and Tanya, daughter returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, his maternal uncle was returning from Ludhiana to Jalandhar, his maternal uncle w some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which some police officials signaled his uncle to stop the vehicle, which was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials told was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials was accordingly stopped. He stated that the police officials his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they his uncle and others to come out of the vehicle failing which they he stated that her aunt was shot at by the accused would be shot. She stated that her aunt was shot at by the accused would be shot. S on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that on her chest and she died at the spot. She categorically stated that both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu both the accused were armed with guns and that while Hindu VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 5 ) gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not gentleman fired a shot hitting his aunt, the Sikh accused did not hot, but had told his companion to shoot. fire any shot, but had told his companion to shoot. fire any s PW-4 HC Sukhpal Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he taken the dead HC Sukhpal Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he taken the dead body of Shaveta to the hospital for post-mortem examination and body of Shaveta to the hospital for post body of Shaveta to the hospital for post that after the same was conducted, the hospital authorities handed that after the same was conducted, that after the same was conducted, f clothes, one vial and a video film, which he over a parcel of clothes, one vial and a video film, which he over a parcel o further handed over to SI Balbir Singh. further handed over to SI Balbir Singh further handed over to SI Balbir Singh Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled PW-5 Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled Harinder Singh, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P5/A). PW-6 Constable Baljit Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered into Constable Baljit Singh, who is a formal witness, has tendered into PW6/A, wherein he deposed that on evidence his affidavit Ex.PW6/A, wherein he deposed that on evidence his affidavit Ex. 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh had handed over 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh had handed over to him the case property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for property including 2 rifles, bullets, empty cartridges etc. for in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, but depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, but depositing the same due to certain objections having been due to having been raised by the said office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated returned the case property with MHC Baldev Singh. He stated that thereafter on 07.04.1999, MHC Baldev that thereafter on MHC Baldev Singh after removing handed over him the case property, the objections had again handed over him the case property, the objections had which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on which he deposited in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his the same day and that as long as the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. possession, the same were not tampered with. possession, the same were not tampered with. HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to PW-7 HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to HC Surjit Singh, who had brought the record pertaining to appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and appointment/posting of Baljit Singh, proved his appointment and last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. last posting order as Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, while he was HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on PW-8 HC Harbhajan Singh stated that on Laudowal, he and ASI Avtar Singh came to posted at Police Post Laudowal, he and ASI Avtar Singh came to posted at Police Post know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached know about the firing incident near Sutlej bridge and they reached at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where at the spot and thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where police officials were already present and that even the accused police officials were already present and that even the accused police officials were already present and that even the accused VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 6 ) were present there and that he took into possession one rifle were present ther and that he took into possession one rifle from Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges vide recovery accused Baljit Singh alongwith 5 live cartridges vide recovery accused memo Ex.PW8/A. memo Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 SI Balbir Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as SI Balbir Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a SI/SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and upon receipt of a reless message on the said day regarding the incident in wireless message on the said day regarding the incident in reless message on the said day regarding the incident in question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil question, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar and got recorded Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar Hospital, Phillaur, where they met Vinod Kumar his statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PA/ his on the basis of which FIR Ex.PA/2 came to be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A be lodged. He stated that he prepared inquest report Ex.PW9/A and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh and handed over the dead body of Shaveta to HC Sukhpal Singh mortem examination conducted alongwith his for getting post-mortem examination conducted alongwith his for getting post . He further stated regarding taking request letters Ex.PB & PC. He further stated regarding taking request letter into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration into possession the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration 5576 belonging to the complainant. He also stated No.HR-01F-5576 belonging to the complainant. He also stated No.HR that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before that ASI Avtar Singh produced PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi before him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which him alongwith rifle, 1 empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. wer e taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-9/C. He the entire investigation conducted by him and stated as regards the entire investigation conducted by him and stated various memos prepared during course of the same. also proved various memos prepared during course of the same. various memos prepared during course of the same. also He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan was He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, challan presented against the accused. presented against the accused. PW-10 Constable Dalbara Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his Constable Dalbara Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-10/A in evidence affidavit Ex.PW 10/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on Singh had handed over him the case 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh had handed over him the case 01.04.1999, MHC Baldev property including clothes of the deceased Shaveta, property including clothes of the deceased Shaveta, blood samples etc. for depositing the same in the office of etc. for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala, but due to certain objections Patiala , but due to certain objections having been raised by the office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev said office, he returned the case property with MHC Baldev said Singh. He stated that thereafter on 0 Singh. He stated th at thereafter on 05.04.1999, MHC Baldev Singh after removing the objections had again handed over to him Singh after removing the objections had Singh after removing the objections had VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 7 ) the case property, which he deposited in the office of Chemical the case property, which he deposited in the office of the case property, which he deposited in the office of Examiner, Patiala on the same day and that as long as Examiner, Patiala on the same day and that as long as the parcels ssion, the same were not tampered with. remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. remained in his posse PW-11 SI Harbhajan Singh stated that on 05.04.1999 while he was posted SI Harbhajan Singh stated that on 05.04.1999 while he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a as ASI in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he was handed over a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01H-5576 by Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.HR Singh with a direction to take the same to the office MHC Baldev Singh with a direction to take the same to the office MHC Baldev of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh and he accordingly took the said vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the vehicle to the said office where the same was handed over to the officials concerned for its examination officials for its examination. He further stated that after examination by FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, after exami nation by FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, the vehicle was Malkhana of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and handed back to Malkhana of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and handed handed over the report of FSL to SHO Balbir Singh. that he handed over the report of FSL to SHO Balbir Singh. that he PW-12 ASI Avtar Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as ASI Avtar Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as Post Lodewal falling under the jurisdiction of Incharge Police Post Lodewal falling under the jurisdiction of Incharge Police Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day, upon Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and that on the said day receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at receipt of a wireless message regarding an incident of firing at Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other police officials proceeded Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other Sutlej bridge, he accompanied by other to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had to the spot from where he came to know that 2 police officials had fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to fired at some person and that the said person had been shifted to hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where hospital and that accordingly they proceeded to the hospital where they noticed that a mob had gathered. He further stated that the 2 they noticed that a mob had gathered they noticed that a mob had gathered accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi accused i.e. Constable Baljit Singh and PHG Dinesh Chaturvedi were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got were also present there. He stated that both the accused were got medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and medically examined as per orders of SI/SHO Balbir Singh and that a rifle, 4 live cartridge and 1 empty cartridge were that a rifle, 4 live cartridge and 1 empty cartridge were recovered from Dinesh Chaturvedi and taken into possession from Dinesh Chaturvedi and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-9/C. memo Ex.PW PW-13 SI Joginder Singh stated that on 03.05.1999, when he was posted SI Joginder Singh stated that on 03.05.1999, when he was posted as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the as SHO Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, he took up the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 8 ) the case during the course of which, he recorded investigation of the case during the course of which, he recorded investigation of and had also received the report the statement of HC Malkit Singh and had also received the report the statement of HC Malkit Singh of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev Singh and had of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev of the Chemical Examiner from MHC Baldev recorded statements of some other officials and that upon recorded statements of some other officials and that upon recorded statements of some other officials and that upon completion of investigation, he had presented the final report completion of investigation, he had presented the final report completion of investigation, he had presented the final report against the accused. against the accused. Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered PW-14 Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered Constable Harvinder Pal Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-14/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that his affidavit Ex.PW evidence, wherein he deposed that on 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa 30.03.1999, he had delivered special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other officers. Magistrate and to other officers. PW-15 HC Malkit Singh 30.03.1999, he was posted as HC Malkit Singh stated that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record MHC, P.P. Laduwal. He produced the summoned record pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials. He pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials pertaining to the duties assigned to various police officials , Constable Baljit Singh and PHG stated that on 30.03.1999, Constable Baljit Singh and PHG stated that on Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a naka Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a Dinesh Chaturvedi had been assigned the duty of holding a on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He on the bridge of Sutlej river from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He further stated that both of them had been issued further s tated that both of them had been issued .303 rifles alongwith 5 live cartridges each. alongwith 5 Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, she was Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, PW-16 Nirmala, Havaldar Instructor, stated that in the year 1999, posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home posted as Corporal Instructor in the City Company Punjab Home Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Guard, Ludhiana and was holding the charge of recruitment of Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on Home Guards and that Dinesh Chaturvedi had been recruited on 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post 04.01.1993 and was posted at Police Station Sadar in Police Post 20.11.1998. During the course of her cross- Ladhowal on 20.11.1998. During the course of her cross Ladhowal examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to examination, she stated that no sanction of competent authority to prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. prosecute Dinesh Chaturvedi is available on the file. HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit PW-17 HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit HC Baldev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-17/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on Ex.PW 17/A in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 30.03.1999, he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that he was posted as MHC, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 9 ) 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case on 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case 31.03.1999 SI/SHO Balbir Singh had handed over him the case property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges property including the clothes of the deceased, 2 rifles, cartridges He also stated with regard to the other articles deposited with etc. He also stated with regard to the other articles deposited with etc. him during the course of investigation. He further stated that on him during the course of investigation. him during the course of investigation. 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were 01.04.1999, the case property including rifles, cartridges etc. were Singh for depositing the same in the sent through Constable Baljit Singh for depositing the same in the sent through Constable Baljit office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, which were deposited on office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. 07.04.1999, as certain objections had been made earlier. 6. The prosecution after tendering into evidence report of FSL (Ex.PX The prosecution into evidence report of FSL (Ex.PX and Ex.PY) closed its evidence. Ex.PY) closed its evidence. 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the case of and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. The relevant extract prosecution in om the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section from the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section om the statement of accused Baljit Singh recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: I alongwith PHG Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Chaturvedi was “I alongwith PHG Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Chaturvedi was holding a Naka on the bridge of river Sutl holding a on the bridge of river Sutlej. We were required to check the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted the vehicles as a small kid, named Harmandeep Singh was abducted from Ludiana and he was un-traceable. During the course of the from Ludiana and he was un ble. During the course of the Naka, he Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was the Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was he Tata sumo driven by Vinod Kumar PW was signaled to stop. I was any rifle was issued to me and I did not fire not carrying any rifle nor any rifle was issued to me and I did not fire not carrying any rifle nor any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was any shot. The driver of the Tata Sumo did not care for the signal. I was standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped standing on the front side of the Tata Sumo, which ultimately stopped and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TATA and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TAT and in the meantime a shot was fired from the rear side of the TAT Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Sumo which hit the wife of Vinod Kumar PW. Both I and Dinesh Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same Chaturvedi rushed the injured to civil Hospital, Phillaur in the same vehicle, where she died. vehicle, where she died. A mob of 300 persons reached the hospital and in the meantime A mob of 300 persons reached the hospital and in the meantime force also reached there. The bob ASI Avtar Singh PW and the Police force also reached there. The bob ASI Avtar Singh PW and the Police came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials came furious and man handled and beat us and the Police officials VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 10 ) including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police including the Investigating Officer, who reached there with the Police force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar force. My name was included in the FIR under pressure of Vinod Kumar e Investigating Officer. I became the victim of the PW and mob on the Investigating Officer. I became the victim of the PW and mob on th vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even vindictiveness and the anger of Vinod Kumar PW and the mob. Even senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am senior officers felt helpless as they wanted to pacify the crowd. I am innocent. innocent. I was not challenged in this case and the committing Magistrate I was not challenged in this case and the committing Mag did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against did not commit me to face the trial nor he could do so. The trial against me is vitiated and the same void-ab-initio. me is vitiated and the same void initio.” 8. Accused – Dinesh Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Dinesh Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded as under: Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded Section 313 Cr.P.C. while professing his innocence pleaded I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. car turned back but there was suspicion that he was carrying Narcotics. Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was Only one shot was fired of which she succumbed to death. It was onstable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I Constable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I onstable who fired the shot from his rifle, which hit the deceased. I belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is belong to Bihar and Baljit Singh accused belongs to Punjab and that is why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order why I have been implicated in this case. I am Homeguard. It was order of the the Constable that prevailed. Section 197 Section 197 Cr.P.C has not been complied with nor reason has been given for non-compliance. The complied with nor reason has been given for non complied with nor reason has been given for non provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these provisions of Homeguard Act has also not been complied with in these circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this circumstances. I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in this ” case.” 9. did not lead any evidence in their defence. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. The accused, however, The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, returned The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, 10. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop its findings to the effect that when the vehicle had been signaled to stop by the accused at a naka, it was Baljit Singh, who told co by the accused at a Singh, who told co-accused Dinesh Chaturvedi to shoot and pursuant to which Dinesh Chaturvedi Chaturvedi to shoot and pursuant to which Dinesh Chaturvedi fired from his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. his service rifle hitting the wife of complainant leading to her death. Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of Consequently, the trial Court while holding Dinesh Chaturvedi guilty of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 11 ) g committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held g committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, held accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under accused Baljit Singh guilty of having committed offence punishable under The trial Court further held accused Dinesh Section 302/34 IPC. The trial Court further held accused Dinesh Section 302/34 IPC. Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable un Chaturvedi guilty of having committed offence punishable un of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said 27(i) of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said of the Arms Act. Baljit Singh was, however, acquitted of said Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 14.01.2005, both the Aggrieved by the said judgment dated charge. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial accused have preferred separate appeals assailing the findings of the trial Court. 11. Learned senior cou Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nsel appearing on behalf of appellant Baljit Singh submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account submitted that it is a case where he has falsely been implicated on account of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story of pressure of the mob, which had gathered at the spot and that the story projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired shots has been found projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired sh projected in the FIR that both the accused had fired sh to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which to be false qua appellant Baljit Singh inasmuch as the service rifle, which was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has was recovered from him, was having all the 5 live cartridges intact. It has further been submitted that even the post-mortem examination further been submitted that even the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of complainant’s wife shows that on the dead b ody of complainant’s wife shows that the 2 injuries found on the dead body are in the nature of an entry and exit wound the dead body are in the nature of an entry and exit wound, which would infact be result of one firearm shot only. Learned senior counsel further result of one firearm shot only. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of submitted that the story of prosecution that it was on the asking of appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appellant Baljit Singh that accused Dinesh Chaturvedi had fired does not appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by appeal to reason, as neither any such direction would have been issued by Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would be bound by any such Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would appellant Baljit Singh nor Dinesh Chaturvedi would direction under the given circumstances. direction under the given circumstances. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 12 )
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that 12. Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi submitted that he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing he has also been falsely implicated and that there is no convincing ce on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any evidence on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any ce on record to show that the deceased had died on account of any fire arm shot fired from the rifle allotted to fire arm shot fired from the rifle allotted to appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body inasmuch as no shell of the cartridge was recovered from the dead body and that although some pieces are stated to have been sent to the FSL, but and that although some pieces are stated to and that although some pieces are stated to the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. the same does not inculpate appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi in any manner. representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi has further Learned counsel representing appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi has further Learned counsel made the following two additional submissions: made the following two additional submissions: made the following two additional submissions: (i) is taken to be correct, still it is a That even if the factum of firing is taken to be correct, still it is a That even if the factum of firing case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter case where both the accused were on official duty and as a matter of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform naka duty of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform of fact on the given day they were deputed to perform and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was and were looking for a child, who had been kidnapped and it was under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the under some misconception that the shot came to be fired at the its glasses tinted and some child were sitting in vehicle, which had its glasses tinted and some child were sitting in vehicle, which had the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these circumstances it the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these c the vehicle. It has been submitted that under these c is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be is at best an offence under Section 304 IPC, which would be attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of attracted and not an offence under Section 302 IPC being a case of firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties firing of shot by a public servant in discharge of his official duties believing in good faith that it was necessary to fire, which would be believing in good faith that it was necess believing in good faith that it was necess fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC; fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC fully covered under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC That in any case, the entire proceedings would be nonest, as no That in any case, the entire proceedings would be (ii) That in any case, the entire proceedings would be sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was sought or accorded sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was before launching prosecution against the appellants despite the fact before launching prosecution against the ap before launching prosecution against the ap that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of that the act apparently had been done by the accused in discharge of will or mala fide and that too in their official duties without any ill-will or mala fide and that too in their official duties without any ill good faith. good faith VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 13 ) Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that having regard Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that 13. Opposing the appeals, learned State counsel submitted that to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the to the fact that it is a case based on direct evidence inasmuch as the complainant (Vinod Kumar), husband of the deceased, complainant (Vinod Kumar) , husband of the deceased, is an eye-witness of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained of the occurrence in question and whose testimony has remained coupled with unimpeached, coupled with unimpeached the fact the fact that medical evidence fully that medical evidence fully corroborates the case of prosecution, conviction of corroborates the case of prosecution, conviction of both the appellants as is fully justified. recorded by the learned trial Court is fully justified. recorded by the learned trial Court We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and 14. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and ith the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the ith the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 15. The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the The evidence with regard to homicidal death needs to be examined at the outset. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Dr. S.K.Sharma, who outset. The prosecution has examined outset. The prosecution has examined alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai Kishan had conducted the post alongwith Dr. Hari Singh and Jai had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shaveta. PW examination on the dead body of . PW-12 described the injuries , as under: found on the dead body of Shaveta, as under: found on the dead body of “1. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular margins on the upper part of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. of right side of the chest, in the front. 8 cm from the middle. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm with everted margins on the back and middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margins of left scapula.” middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margi middle of left side of chest. 8 cm from lower margi 16. PW-2 opined that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and 2 opined that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and massive haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. A sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary course of nature. perusal of the injuries as found to be existing on the dead body of perusal of the inj uries as found to be existing on the dead body of Shaveta clearly reveal that while injury No.1 is on the front side of chest, injury reveal that while injury No.1 is on the front side of chest, injury VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 14 ) No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. Injury No.2 has everted No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. No.2 is on the back and middle side of chest. A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. During A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. margins. A metallic piece was also recovered from the wound. cross-examination, PW 2 stated that entry wound is from chest side and examination, PW-2 stated that entry wound is from chest side and The said facts suggest that it is exit wound was at the back of dead body. The said facts suggest that it is exit wound was at the back of dead body. a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Though the witness was cross- a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Tho a case of injuries caused by a firearm shot. Tho examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing elicited during cited during his cross-examination so as to doubt either examination so as to doubt either his veracity or his opinion. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it opinion. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury is a case of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury of homicidal death of Shaveta on account of the firearm injury sustained by her. sustained by her. Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR 17. Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR Coming to the ocular version, the complainant (Vinod Kumar) in the FIR that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired alleged that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired that both of them i.e. Dinesh Chaturvedi and Baljit Singh fired shots. While in the While in the witness-box also, PW- -1 Vinod Kumar (complainant) Alisha, who was a child witness, stated stated to the similar effect. PW-3 Alisha, who was a child witness, stated stated to the similar effect. PW that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh that while the Hindu gentleman fired a shot hitting her aunt, the Sikh accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to shoot. The accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to sho accused did not fire shot, but had told his companion to sho factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle from Baljit factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle factum of recovery of 5 live cartridges alongwith service rifle Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge Singh and also the recovery of service rifle alongwith 1 empty cartridge Dinesh Chaturvedi shows that only 1 shot had and 4 live cartridges from Dinesh Chaturvedi shows that only 1 shot had and 4 live cartridges , as both of them had been issued 5 been fired by one of the two accused, as both of them had been issued 5 been fired by one of the t cartridges only as specifically stated by PW-15. As per the FSL report, cartridges only as specifically stated by PW cartridges only as specifically stated by PW the shot in question had been fired from rifle No.75-L-8975, Bolt No.CA- the shot in question had been fired from rifle No. the shot in question had been fired from rifle No. 21203, Butt No.732, which had been recovered from 21203, Butt No.732 been recovered from Dinesh Chaturvedi. The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of The factum of issuance of rifle and cartridges is proved from statement of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 15 ) PW-15 HC The recovery of rifle was effected on 15 HC Malkit Singh. The recovery of rifle was effected on 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW-12 ASI Avtar Singh. It 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW 30.03.1999 itself from Dinesh Chaturvedi by PW is, thus, evident that only 1 shot had been fired by accused is, thus, evident that only 1 shot had been fired by accused Dinesh , which proved fatal. Chaturvedi, which proved fatal. 18. Role of Dinesh Chaturvedi he material issue in the instant case would Role of Dinesh Chaturvedi : The material issue in the instant case would be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired be as to whether the shot fired by appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi was fired kill the deceased attracting an offence punishable with an intention to kill the deceased attracting an offence punishable with an intention to under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such under Section 302 IPC or as to whether the accused did not have any such intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, intention or as to whether the shot was fired under some mistaken belief, which still could attract an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. which still could attract an offence punishable under Sect which still could attract an offence punishable under Sect 19. The co-accused Baljit Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section accused Baljit Singh in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were required to check the vehicles as a child named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was named Harmandeep Singh had been abducted from Ludhiana and was ir Singh, who investigated the case, admitted untraceable. PW-9 SI Balbir Singh, who investigated the case, admitted untraceable. PW examination while stating as under: the said fact during cross-examination while stating as under: the said fact during cross “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses “…………..There was a light film pasted on the glasses panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction panes on Tata Sumo. In those days, there was abduction of a child named Harmandeep Singh from Ludhiana and of a child named Harmandeep Singh from of a child named Harmandeep Singh from at various places to nab the police were holding naka at various places to nab the police were holding alleged abducted.” alleged abducted.” 20. It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were It is borne out of from evidence on record that both the accused were serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given serving Police Department and were deputed to perform duty on the given at bridge on river Sutlej. It is also borne out that both of day to hold naka at bridge on river Sutlej. It is also borne out that both of day to hold them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. them were carrying their service rifles for effective discharge of duties. , apart from tracing the missing child, who was During the course of naka, apart from tracing the missing child, who was During the course of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 16 ) reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were reported to have been kidnapped, the accused being police officials were also expected to be vigilant and check criminal activity. Dinesh also expected to be vigilant and check also expected to be vigilant and check Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Chaturvedi in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying that he had fired stated that the vehicle had been stopped while denying that he had fired stated that the while denying that he had fired stated that the on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had on suspicion that some narcotics was being transported, as the driver had It is a case where only one single shot was tried to turn back the vehicle. It is a case where only one single shot was tried to turn back the vehicle fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on fired and which unfortunately hit the wife of the complainant sitting on r seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be the rear seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be r seat. The facts suggest that it is a case where a shot came to be fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that fired by Dinesh Chaturvedi in good faith under some mistaken belief that the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity the same was required to be fired. It is not a case that they had any enmity sed or that their intention was to with the complainant or with the deceased or that their intention was to with the complainant or with the decea loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant loot them. The subsequent conduct of the appellants will also be relevant inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital inasmuch as after the incident the appellants were present in the hospital itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they itself where the deceased had been taken which would also show that they did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under did not have any dubious intentions when the shot came to be fired. Under the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall the given circumstances, in our opinion, it is a case, which would fall under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of under one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC. The relevant provisions of IPC are extracted herein-under: IPC are extracted herein 99. Culpable homicide. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause the offence of culpable homicide. death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. death, commits A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring Explanation 1. under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes Explanation 2. - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. prevented. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 17 ) Explanation The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child etely born. may not have breathed or been completely born. may not have breathed or been compl 300. Murder. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – causing death, or 2ndly. It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender 2ndly. - It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – caused, or - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person 3rdly. ily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course and the bod of nature to cause death, or – of nature to cause death, or If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently 4thly. dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily inju dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily inju likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1. - x x x Exception 1. Exception 2. – x x x Exception 2. Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder Exception 3. is not murder if the offender, being a public or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public servant justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. – x x x Exception 4. Exception 5. – x x x Exception 5. 21. The facts of the given case where The facts of the given case where appellant appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi, while on deceased under some mistaken belief that it was duty, fired one shot at the deceased under some mistaken belief that it was duty, fired one shot at the required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, required, in good faith, would fall under Exception 3 to section 300 IPC, taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently, the taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently taking out the case from the ambit of section 300 IPC. Consequently act of appellant appellant Dinesh Chaturvedi would attract an Dinesh Chaturvedi would attract an offence section 299 punishable under section 304 IPC. IPC punishable under section 304 IPC. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 18 ) 22. Role of Baljit Singh As regards role of Baljit Singh, the complainant Baljit Singh : As regards role of Baljit Singh, the complainant 1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box (PW-1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box 1) has alleged in the FIR and also while deposing in the witness box that both of the accused had fired, but the other eye that both of the accused had fired but the other eye-witness PW-3 categorically stated that only the hindu accused fired and that the categorically stated that only the accused fired and that the sikh accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already accused did not shoot but had told his companion to shoot. As already discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case discussed in preceding para, the evidence clearly establishes it to be a case of firing of a single shot only by Dinesh firing of a single shot only by Dinesh Chaturvedi Chaturvedi. While the presence of Baljit Singh alongwith Dinesh Chaturvedi of Baljit Singh alongwith Dinesh Chaturvedi at the spot is not in dispute as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold ‘naka’ on the bridge on as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold as both of them were admittedly deputed to hold g fired any shot and there being river Sutlej but Baljit Singh not having fired any shot and there being river Sutlej but Baljit Singh not havin some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant some contradiction in evidence as regards his role and the complainant not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co- not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co not having stated anything regarding Baljit Singh having told his co to shoot, the role of Baljit Singh in the accused Dinesh Chaturvedi to shoot, the role of Baljit Singh in the accused Dinesh stion is rendered doubtful. He can neither be attributed any incident in question is rendered doubtful. He can neither be attributed any incident in que nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed mens-rea nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed nor can be held vicariously liable for offence, if any, committed accused Dinesh Chaturvedi. by co-accused Dinesh Chaturvedi. 23. Sanction for Prosecution Having held that the shot came to be fired by Sanction for Prosecution : Having held that the shot came to be fired by haturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official Dinesh Chaturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official haturvedi under some mistaken belief in discharge of his official duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not duties which would fall within the ambit of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question amounting to murder” punishable under section 304 IPC, another question which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in terms of Section 197 which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in which still survives is as to whether ‘sanction’ in Cr.P.C. was Cr.P.C. was Cr.P.C. was required required required to be to be to be taken before prosecuting taken before prosecuting taken before prosecuting the the the 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under: accused/appellants. Section 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under: accused/appellants. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 19 ) Prosecution of Judges and public servants. - (1) When any person who is Prosecution of Judges and public servants. “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government (b) n the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government: with the affairs of a State of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply ession "State Government" occurring therein, the expression as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression as if for the expr "Central Government" were substituted.] "Central Government" were substituted.] For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction [Explanation shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence allege shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence allege have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, section 376DA, section 376DB,] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.] 2013 ] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.] 2013 ] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members (of the Forces charged section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub expression "Central Government" occurring expression "Central Government" occurring expression "Central Government" occurring therein therein therein the expression "State the expression "State the expression "State ernment" were substituted. Government" were substituted. A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub [(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 20 ) Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government twithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other [(3-B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other twithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date the 20th day of on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the oclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution period while a Pr was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. and may specify t he Court before which the trial is to be held.” Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person 24. Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person Section 5 of the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 clarifies that a person have protection as enjoyed by public appointed as a ‘Home Guard’ would have protection as enjoyed by public appointed as a ‘Home Guard’ would servant in the matter of prosecution. Section servant in the matter of prosecution Section 5 of the said Act reads as under: “5. (1) A member of the Punjab Home Guards Powers, protection and control – (1) A member of the Punjab Home Guards Powers, protection and control when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and when called out under Section 4 shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the time being in protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the ti protection as an officer of police appointed under any law for the ti force. force. No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home (2) No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home No prosecution shall be instituted against a member of the Punjab Home Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the Guards in respect of anything done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction discharge of his functions as such member, except with the previous sanction of the State Government.” of the S 25. In K. Kalimuthu Vs. State K. Kalimuthu Vs. State by D.S.P., (2005) 4 SCC 512 (2005) 4 SCC 512, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: Supreme Court “11. It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-85-DB-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) CRA-D-337-DB-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & ( 21 ) he public servant in course of his service and such act must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act must have been done by t or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its determining its applicability to any act or determining its applicability to any act or operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given li a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given li construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is establi be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is establi act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. rding protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand purpose of affo frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may er commits an act in course of service but be necessary. But if the same officer commits an act in course of service but be necessary. But if the same offic not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefor then the bar under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his duty can be deemed omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari