Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 15 docs - [View All]
Arms Act
Amrik Singh vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 7 August, 1995
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 25 in Arms Act
Citedby 3 docs
Jaspal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2015
Dharamvir Alias Dharmi vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 2015
Satish Chander vs State Of Punjab on 7 July, 2015
Dalwinder Singh @ Arshi vs State Of Punjab on 18 January, 2018
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 November, 2018

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 2012
Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007                                           1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                         Date of decision: 31.1.2012

(I) Crl.Appeal No.56-DB of 2007

Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky
                                                               ... Appellant
                               vs.
State of Punjab
                                                           ... Respondent
(II) Crl.Appeal No.498-DBA of 2007

State of Punjab
                                                            ... Appellant
                               vs.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others
                                                           ... Respondents
(III) Crl.Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007

State of Punjab
                                                           ... Appellant
                               vs.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others
                                                           ... Respondents

(IV) Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006

Amrik Singh
                                                           ... Petitioner
                             vs.
State of Punjab and others
                                                           ... Respondents
(V) Crl.Revision No.295 of 2007

Amrik Singh
                                                           ... Petitioner
                             vs.
State of Punjab and others
                                                           ... Respondents
(VI) Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007

Amrik Singh
                                                           ... Petitioner
                             vs.
State of Punjab and others

                                                         ... Respondents
 Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007                                         2

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON.
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present:    Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky,
            appellant in Crl.Appeal No.56-DB of 2007.
            Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners in
            Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007
            Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate, with
            Mr.Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for
            Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, respondent, in
            Crl.Appeals No.498-DBA of 2007 and 1112-SBA of 2007 and
            Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007
            Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondents Paramjit
            Singh @ Pammi and Parveen Kumar in Crl.Revision Nos.2507
            of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007.
            Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate, for respondent Pawan Kumar in
            Crl.Revision Nos.2507 of 2006, 295 and 296 of 2007.
            Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Addl.AG, Punjab.

JORA SINGH, J.

By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal No.56-DB of 2007 (Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky vs. State of Punjab), Crl. Appeal No.498-DBA of 2007 (State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others), Crl. Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007 (State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others), Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others), Crl. Revision No.295 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others), as the same have been preferred against the common judgment of conviction dated 30.9.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, in Sessions Case No.47 of 2001/2006, arising out of FIR No.10 dated 8.1.2001 under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.

By the said judgment, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) of the Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 3 Arms Act and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC and undergo RI for three years and pay a fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine or a part thereof, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

Iqbal Singh, Simarjit Singh and Satbir Pal Singh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them after recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short).

Crl.Appeal No.498-DBA has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of accused Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 IPC, whereas Crl.Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007 has been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill under the Arms Act.

Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006 is preferred by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the order dated 28.9.2006 vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Crl.Revision No.295 of 2007 is preferred by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007 is filed by Amrik Singh (complainant) against the acquittal of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 4 Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2001, SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, received a message on telephone from the Incharge, New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, that Avtar Singh and his father Amrik Singh were admitted with firearm injuries in New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and proceedings may be initiated by sending an Investigating Officer. On receipt of the message, Santokh Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, along with ASI Jaspal Singh, ASI Sukhwinder Singh, HC Harsukhdev Pal Singh and SPO Hardyal Singh in a private vehicle reached New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, for conducting proceedings. An application was moved asking the doctor as to whether Avtar Singh injured was fit to make a statement. The doctor opined that Avtar Singh was unfit to make a statement, however, Amrik Singh injured was declared fit to make a statement. Then statement of Amrik Singh injured was recorded by Inspector Santokh Singh on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2001 at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. After making an endorsement at 2.30 a.m., statement of Amrik Singh (Ex.PA) was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PN) was recorded on 8.1.2001. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. on 8.1.2001.

Amrik Singh injured stated that he was residing at New Prem Nagar, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, and he was running a grocery shop in a portion of his residential house. On 7.1.2001 in the evening, he was present at his shop and he received information on telephone from Sushil Kumar Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 5 son of Chint Lal, resident of House No.1480, Krishana Nagar, Ludhiana, that on that day (7.1.2001) he (Sushil Kumar) along with the son of the complainant namely Avtar Singh, Chandan Bhatti, Navdeep Singh @ Bobby, Harjinder Singh @ Lucky, Amandeep Singh and Sushil Kumar Bobby were going to Ram Sharnam Temple, Tagore Nagar and at the back side of Sireesh Nursing Home, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, who is serving in the police department along with his gunmen and other private persons had stopped them from going through the street. However, on the persistence of Avtar Singh etc., they had been quarrelling with them. Amrik Singh, complainant, was asked to come immediately. On this, Amrik Singh along with Daljit Singh son of Mangal Singh and Surjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh reached at the spot. The time was about 8.30 p.m. On reaching there, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky resident of House No.124-A, Maya Nagar, Ludhiana who had a pistol in his hand and his gunman Bittu Singh (Ravinder Singh) who had a pistol, besides, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi c/o Verma Gun House, Punna Dairywala, empty handed and two young men out of whom one had an AK-47 rifle and the other was empty handed were standing there by the side of the cars, i.e. cream colour Maruti Car No. PB

-08A-0153, Esteem Car No.PB-10B -1164 and one cream colour Scooter No. PB-08L-8127, in front of the house of Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky. They were drinking liquor and were hurling abuses in a loud voice to their above said boys. Then they, i.e., complainant side asked as to what was the matter. On this, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Punna and one more empty handed person raised lalkaras exhorting that they be taught a lesson for passing from there. On saying this, Bittu (Avtar Singh), gunman, with the pistol held by him fired his pistol with an intention to kill on the forehead of Avtar Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 6 Singh, the son of the complainant Amrik Singh. In the meantime, above said Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky with an intention to kill Amrik Singh, complainant, fired at him, which hit him on the front of his forehead towards the left side and another gunman hit with the butt of his rifle on the forehead of Daljit Singh. Avtar Singh, the son of the complainant Amrik Singh on being hit by a bullet fell down. They all raised an alarm `Maar Ditta Maar Ditta' and then all the above said accused persons while raising loud lalkaras, hurling abuses besides firing in the air fled away on the vehicles which were parked there from the spot with their respective weapons. Amrik Singh, complainant, and Daljit Singh after arranging a vehicle got Avtar Singh admitted for treatment at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Amrik Singh, complainant, for his own treatment was also admitted. The cause of grudge was that the accused persons were not allowing them to pass through the open street and were stopping them. On their objection, the accused persons fired on them with an intention to kill them. Inspector/SHO Santokh Singh had reached at the hospital and Amrik Singh, complainant got his statement recorded which was attested by him. Avtar Singh at 5.20 p.m. on 8.1.2001 succumbed to his injuries at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana.

The Investigating Officer had gone at the spot and prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes at the instance of Sushil Kumar. One empty cartridge of pistol .30 bore on which No.74 and No.11 were inscribed and another empty cartridge of an AK-47 assault rifle were lifted from the spot and made into a sealed parcel with seal bearing impression `SS'. Blood stained earth was also lifted from the spot, which was made into a parcel and sealed with seal bearing impression `SS'. A seal impression Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 7 of the seal used was also prepared. One pair of 'chappal' (slippers) was also taken into police possession vide separate memo., which was attested by the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Incharge of the Malkhana.

On 8.1.2011 in the evening, SHO, Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, received message from New DMC, Ludhiana, about the death of Avtar Singh. Then the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. Inspector Santokh Singh, Investigating Officer, had gone to DMC, Ludhiana, on 9.1.2001. Inquest report was prepared. Statements of Deepak Sharma and Hoshiar Singh were recorded. They had identified the dead body of Avtar Singh. Dr.Sachin Jindal delivered a sealed parcel of the clothes which were worn by the deceased. Dead body was handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination. The doctor opined that injuries No.2 and 3 noticed on the person of the deceased were by a firearm. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Supplementary statement of Amrik Singh was recorded on 8.1.2001 and as per supplementary statement, it was stated that he had got recorded that gunman Bittu Gill had fired a shot with his pistol at his son Avtar Singh. But in fact Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, Police Inspector had fired a shot at his son Avtar Singh and due to that he died.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill was arrested on 10.1.2001. Paramjit Singh @ Pammi surrendered in Court on 12.1.2001 and Satbir Pal Singh @ Sonu was arrested on 13.1.2001. Jaswant Singh @ Punna was arrested on 14.1.2001. A Cielo Car belonging to Satbir Pal Singh @ Sonu was taken into police possession on 15.1.2001. Iqbal Singh was arrested on Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 8 15.1.2001. Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was arrested on 19.1.2001. Eight bottles of Indian made foreign liquor were recovered from the premises of Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky. Regarding recovery of liquor, a separate case under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act was registered against him.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill was interrogated on 17.1.2001 and he suffered a disclosure statement. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a pistol from his residential house situated in Mohalla Gyan Vihar. Regarding recovery of pistol, a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him.

Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was interrogated and he suffered a disclosure statement on 22.1.2001. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a .38 bore service revolver along with 20 live cartridges. The weapon and cartridges were made into separate sealed parcels by the Investigating Officer. Sealed parcels were deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.

Parveen Kumar was arrested on 22.1.2001. Maruti Car No. PB-08-A-153 was recovered. Parveen Kumar on interrogation suffered a disclosure statement on 24.1.2001. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered an AK-47 assault rifle along with 4 magazines and 75 live cartridges. Arms and ammunition recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement were sealed by the Investigating Officer Santokh Singh with his own seal bearing impression `SS'.

Pawan Kumar was arrested on 25.1.2001, whereas Simarjeet Singh was arrested on 27.1.2001 and he got recovered Scooter No.PB-08-L- 8127.

Sealed parcels of arms and cartridges were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.

Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 9

After completion of investigation, nine accused, namely, Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Iqbal Singh, Simarjit Singh and Satbir Pal Singh were sent up for trial.

Vide order dated 22.3.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

As per order of this Court dated 18.8.2006 in passed in Criminal Misc. No.45035-M of 2006, the case was transferred to the Court of Session, Yamuna Nagar.

After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and from perusal of documents on the file, the learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case was made out to frame charges under Sections 148/302/307/323/336/225 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/29(b)/30 of the Arms Act against the accused and they were charge sheeted accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined number of witnesses and also tendered documents in evidence.

PW1 Amrik Singh is the complainant. He reiterated his stand as was taken by him before the police in terms of his statement (Ex.PA) and supplementary statement (Ex.PB).

PW2 Daljit Singh is the injured eye witness and he stated that on 7.1.2001, he was present at his residence on account of some injuries sustained on his head. After that, he failed to support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.

Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 10

PW3 Sushil Kumar stated that Avtar Singh received firearm injuries and as a result thereof, he had died but he did not know as to who had fired that shot. Sushil Kumar was also declared hostile.

PW4 Harjinder Singh is the eye witness and he stated that Avtar Singh (deceased) was known to him, who had died on 7.1.2001. He was shot dead but he did not know as to who killed him. After that, he was also declared hostile.

PW5 Amandeep Singh is also one of the eye witnesses and he stated that he came to know that Avtar Singh was shot dead. After that he failed to support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.

PW6 HC Jagseer Singh as per record stated that Gurmeet Singh accused was transferred to Moga where he reported his arrival on 13.12.2000 but was absent w.e.f. 4.1.2001.

PW7 Inspector Dharam Pal on receipt of ruqa, recorded formal FIR (Ex.PN).

PW8 Sudh Ram delivered special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 8.1.2001.

PW9 ASI Gurmeet Singh stated that as per record, one .38 bore revolver and 30 cartridges were issued to Gurmeet Singh accused. In cross- examination it is stated that the revolver and the cartridges were not deposited back.

PW10 Dr.S.K.Sharma was a member of the Medical Board and on 9.1.2001 had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Avtar Singh and found the following injuries:-

"1. Left eye was black.
2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm with inverted margins on the outer side of left eyebrow.
Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 11
3. Lacerated wound with averted margins 1.25 cm x 1 cm placed on the left side back of head, 7 cm from the left pinna.
4. Abrasion 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm below and outer side of the left eye.
5. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/ 2 cm on the upper and outer part of left pinna.
6. Abrasion 2 cm x 1/ 2 cm on the medial and upper part of left pinna.
7. Abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm on the outer and middle part of the left chest.
8. Abrasion 6 cm x 1/6 cm on the front and lower part of neck.
9. Multiple abrasion on the upper part of right toe."

In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The possibility of injuries No.2 and 3 on the head being caused by firearm could not be ruled out. Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was 21 hours and between death and post mortem within 24 hours.

PW11 Constable Ram Saran prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PT). PW12 HC Amrik Singh as per record stated that Gurmeet Singh accused was appointed as a Constable on 16.12.1988 and was promoted as Head Constable on 20.6.1989. He was given ORP (On Rank Promotion) as ASI on 4.3.1992. After that, he was given ORP (On Rank Promotion) as Inspector on 5.10.2000. ASI Pawan Kumar No. 2251 and Constable Parveen Kumar No.2829 were provided as Gunmen to Gurmeet Singh, accused.

Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 12

PW13 HC Harbans Lal stated that as per record, on 9.11.1990 one assault rifle bearing Butt No. 5, Body No. 88321247 along with 4 magazines and 100 cartridges was issued to Gurmeet Singh, accused.

PW14 Karam Chand did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

PW15 HC Kulwinder Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.PY).

PW16 Hoshiar Singh had identified the dead body of Avtar Singh. Recovery of arms and ammunition was effected from Gurmeet Singh in the presence of Hoshiar Singh but he did not support the prosecution case qua recovery of arms and ammunition from Gurmeet Singh, accused.

PW17 HC Raghbir Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.PCC).

PW18 HC Ashok Kumar had simply recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

PW19 HC Karam Singh stated that as per record, one mouser along with magazine was issued to Constable Parveen Kumar.

PW20 Dr. Jasbir Singh had medico legally examined Daljit Singh and found the following injury on his person:-

"1. Blackish area 1-1/2'' x 1.1/4'' just above the left eye brow and the patient was referred to surgical specialist for expert opinion."
PW21 DSP Santokh Singh is the Investigating Officer.

PW22 Avtar Singh did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

PW23 Hazara Singh, retired SI, was with the Investigating Officer during investigation of this case and in his presence, recoveries were Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 13 effected from the accused.

PW24 Harpreet Singh stated that he had purchased Cello Car No.DL-3CJ-3733 of Model 1997 from M/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. and the same was sold to Sarabjit Singh on 26.4.2000.

PW25 G.Karthikeyan, LDC, Transport Department, Delhi, brought original registration card pertaining to Cello Car No.DL-3CJ-3733 registered in the name of M/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd.

PW26 Sarabjit Singh stated that he had purchased Cello Car No. DL-3CJ-3733 from Harpreet Singh and after that, the car was sold to Sudhir Thapar in May, 2000.

PW27 Dalbir Singh, Clerk, DTO Office, Ludhiana, as per record stated that Scooter No. PB-10B-1164 was registered in the name of Balwinder Singh.

PW28 Darshan Lal, Junior Assistant, as per record stated that temporary number PB-08-L-8812 was given to M/s Lovely Auto, Jalandhar, for further allotting the same to purchasers of vehicles.

PW29 Satish Kumar, Record Keeper, brought the bed head tickets of Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh.

PW30 HC Harsukhdev Pal was also with the Investigating Officer and in his presence, recoveries were effected from the accused.

PW31 Dr.Gagandeep Singh stated that on 8.1.2001 in view of the application moved by the Investigating Officer, Avtar Singh was declared unfit to make a statement, whereas Amrik Singh was declared fit to make a statement.

PW32 Dr. Sachin Jindal stated that on 7.1.2001, Avtar Singh was medico legally examined by him at 9.21 p.m. and he observed as Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 14 follows:-

"1. Wound 2 x 2 cm on lateral aspect of left eyebrow.
Margins were irregular and bleeding.
2. Wound 2 x 2 cm on left parietal region. Margins irregular bleeding and brain matter coming out.
3. Abrasions 3 x 1 cm just below and lateral to left eye.
4. Wound 2.5 x 5 cm on left ear pinna with loss of superficial skin and cartilage from upper part of pinna.
5. Left black eye.
6. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm on tip of right great toe. The nature of injuries to be investigated and duration of injuries was within one hour."

On the same day, he had medico legally examined Amrik Singh and observed as under:-

"1. Cut lacerated wound about 3 above the left eye brow on left forehead. Margins irregular, bleeding and wound was bone deep.
Nature of injury to be investigated. Approximate duration of injury was 2 hours 15 minutes."

After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short). They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.

Defence version of Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky is as under:- In fact my weapons, one AK-47 with four magazines and hundred cartridges, which has been falsely planted in this case, one revolver .38 bore and 30 cartridges, which has been falsely planted in this case, one .22 rifle and one air gun were taken away by the police and the newspaper Jagran dt. 14.1.2001 Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 15 shows the picture photo of Constable Kulwinder Singh, PS Division No.5, Ludhiana, carrying away these weapons from my police quarter, Inspector Quarter No.2, Police Line, Ludhiana. The other weapons .22 and air gun are not yet returned to me by the police and the same are with PS Division No.5, which are recorded in the police record on 13.1.2001. Many writs were filed against me by the official of police witnesses in the High Court which were totally false. Defence version of Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar was that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.

In defence, the accused examined a number of witnesses. DW1 Baljeet Singh, MHC, brought record of FIR No. 23 dated 25.1.1998, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A. In the said FIR, Ravinder Singh @ Bittu and Kamaljit Singh @ Kamla were challaned. The case, as per record, was under trial.

DW2 Satish Pahuja, brought original telegram, copy of which was Ex.DW2/A, sent to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, along with photostat copies of proceedings of the Court (Ex.DW2/B), affidavit of Subhash Rani (Ex.DW2/C) and press cutting (Mark DW2/A).

DW3 Constable Som Raj stated that House No. 113-C, Police Lines, Ludhiana, was allotted to Constable Parveen Kumar No.1828 on 25.10.2000.

DW4 Subhash Rani stated that her son Parveen Kumar was serving in Police Department. On 10.1.2001, she was present in quarter No.113-C and her daughter-in-law was also there. Three-four officials of Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 16 CIA Staff came and her son Parveen Kumar was taken away by the officials. They stated that an inquiry was to be made regarding Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky. On enquiry, they were told by the officials that her son shall be released after a day or two. She had sent telegrams to the Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, and Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Parveen Kumar was falsely implicated in this case.

DW5 Parveen Puri, Clerk office of `Daily Ajit' Jalandhar had brought newspaper file for the month of January, 2001. He stated that on 15.1.2001 news as reflected in Ex.DW5/A from portion A to A-1 was published in the newspaper `Daily Ajit, Jalandhar. The zerox copy of which was Ex.DW5/A.

DW6 Rajinder Singh stated that Car No. PB-08-A-0153 owned by Surinder Gupta was not produced before the police by him and his signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police.

DW7 Jagir Singh stated that he used to supply milk at the residential quarter of Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, accused. On 13.1.2001 at about 4.30 p.m., he had gone to the house of Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky to supply milk. Gurmeet Singh came after door bell was pressed. In the meantime, Inspector Santokh Singh, Investigating Officer, came. On telephone, Investigating Officer reported to some one that one .38 bore service revolver, one AK-47 rifle and one rifle were recovered from the house of Gurmeet Singh.

DW8 Sandeep Singh was working as Yard Master in Ludhiana Depot of Punjab Roadways. He stated that his son Satwinder Singh was having a Taxi Stand by the name of Janta Taxi Stand situated near Bus Stand. He used to visit the office of Janta Taxi Stand in the morning to give Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 17 breakfast and lunch to his son Satwinder Singh. On 8.1.2001, he had gone to Janta Taxi Stand at 8.00 a.m. to give breakfast and lunch to Satwinder Singh. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu was working as a booking agent with his son. At about 8.30 a.m. on 8.1.2001, Inspector Gurinder Jeet Singh came to the Janta Taxi Stand and took away Ravinder Singh @ Bittu.

DW9 Amrit Pal Singh stated that House No.126, Maya Nagar, Ludhiana, was allotted to his father late Dr.Gurbax Singh. He along with his family was residing in the said house from 1975 to 2003. He was a prosecution witness in the murder of Ashok Kumar Bedi who was the son of SSP Rajbishan Bedi. Daljit Singh Bittu and Gursharanjit Singh Gamma were the accused in that case. They were dreaded terrorists. Being prosecution witness, security was provided to him by the department. He was also on the hit list of terrorists. No weapon like revolver and gun etc. were recovered from his house in the month of January, 2001. He was summoned to the police station, where his signatures were obtained on certain papers.

The learned trial Court after hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the evidence on the file, convicted Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, accused and he was sentenced as stated aforesaid. The remaining accused, namely, Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, Paramjit Singh @ Pammi, Jaswant Singh @ Punna, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Gurmeet Singh, learned State counsel, learned counsel for Ravinder Singh @ Bittu and other accused, who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and learned counsel for the revisionist and with their assistance have gone Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 18 through the evidence and material on the file.

Learned counsel for Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky appellant contended that Amrik Singh, father of the deceased, is the only witness who has supported the prosecution story but his presence at the time of occurrence is highly improbable. Initial version of the prosecution is that Amrik Singh received information qua the occurrence from PW3 Sushil Kumar but he did not support the prosecution story. Amrik Singh is a chance witness and this fact is also clear from the statement of PW32 Dr. Sachin Jindal. The occurrence had taken place at about 8.15 p.m. on 7.1.2001 in front of the house of the appellant. After the occurrence, Avtar Singh, deceased, was shifted to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and there the statement of Amrik Singh was recorded. According to the statement (Ex.PA) of Amrik Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill fired a shot hitting Avtar Singh, deceased, whereas Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, appellant, fired a shot hitting him. The occurrence was witnessed by Sushil Kumar, Avtar Singh, Chandan Bhatti, Navdeep Singh @ Bobby, Harjinder Singh @ Lucky, Daljit Singh, Surjit Singh and Amandeep Singh, but none of them have supported the version of Amrik Singh. After the death of Avtar Singh, supplementary statement (Ex.PB) of Amrik Singh was recorded, wherein roles of the appellant and Ravinder Singh were changed and reversed. According to the supplementary statement, the appellant Gurmeet Singh had fired a shot hitting the deceased, whereas Ravinder Singh, who has been acquitted by the trial Court, had fired a shot hitting Amrik Singh. It is contended that in case, Amrik Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then there was no reason to reverse the roles as he had reported the matter as was actually seen by him. It is further contended that after the statement of Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 19 Amrik Singh, inquest report (Ex.PL) was prepared but there is no reference as regards the supplementary statement.

Learned counsel for the accused, who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, contended that the evidence on the file was rightly appreciated by the learned trial Court. A judgment of acquittal is liable to be reversed only if the Court is of the opinion that the evidence was not rightly appreciated and scrutinized and that the judgment is perverse. If a possible view was taken by the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, then its judgment is not liable to be reversed on the mere ground that there is a possibility of a different view.

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned State counsel have submitted that the incident had occurred at about 8.15 p.m. on 7.1.2001 in front of the house of the appellant. On receipt of a telephone message from Sushil Kumar (PW3), Amrik Singh, father of the deceased, had reached at the place of incident. The occurrence was witnessed by Amrik Singh, father of the deceased, and he would ensure that the actual culprits are brought to book and he would be the last person to absolve the real culprit. It is submitted that before the present occurrence, the complainant had no enmity with the appellant. So, there was no reason for him to implicate the appellant Gurmeet Singh. After receipt of firearm injuries, Amrik Singh became nervous. Avtar Singh was shifted to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. After the death of Avtar Singh, when the complainant came to know that his statement (Ex.PA) was not correctly recorded, then his supplementary statement (Ex.PB) was recorded. Presence of Amrik Singh at the time of occurrence is natural because Avtar Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 20 Singh was shifted to the hospital by him. Amrik Singh also suffered injury in the occurrence and he was medico legally examined. He was, therefore, a stamped witness. In case, there was no information on telephone from the side of Sushil Kumar, then for Amrik Singh to come at the spot and shift Avtar Singh to the hospital would not have been possible. The Investigating Officer in fact gave concession to the appellant because they are from the same department. From the very beginning, an effort was made by the Investigating Officer to create a doubt in its own version.

Admittedly, Avtar Singh, deceased, is the son of Amrik Singh, complainant. The incident in the case had occurred on 7.1.2001 at about 8.15 p.m. in front of the house of the appellant Gurmeet Singh. Avtar Singh had died at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 8.1.2001 at about 5.45 p.m. According to the prosecution case, the appellant had fired a shot hitting the deceased, whereas defence version of the appellant Gurmeet Singh is that some unknown person had fired a shot hitting the deceased. The dispute, therefore, is whether the appellant had fired a shot hitting the deceased or some unknown person had fired a shot hitting him. Regarding the date, time and place of occurrence, there is no dispute.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Gurmeet Singh is that the presence of Amrik Singh, father of the deceased, at the time of incident is highly improbable. According to the learned counsel, the presence of Amrik Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful and he is at the most a mere chance witness. It is submitted that the statement of Amrik Singh inspires no confidence when other eye witnesses, namely, Sushil Kumar, Avtar Singh, Chandan Bhatti, Navdeep Singh @ Bobby, Harjinder Singh @ Lucky and Amandeep Singh did not support the Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 21 prosecution case. However, after going through the evidence on the file, we are of the view that submission of learned counsel for the appellant Gurmeet Singh carries little weight. Avtar Singh deceased was the only son of Amrik Singh, complainant, and before the occurrence, the complainant had no enmity whatsoever with the appellant Gurmeet Singh. Firearm injury was found on the person of the deceased and the said injury cannot be self suffered or self inflicted. The statement of Amrik Singh is to the effect that he was present in his house and then a telephone message was received from Sushil Kumar that some persons were quarrelling with his son (Avtar Singh) and his friends. On receipt of the telephone message, he (Amrik Singh) had gone to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Amrik Singh had also received injury in the same occurrence. Therefore, he is a stamped witness and his evidence and deposition in Court inspires confidence especially when he had no motive to falsely implicate any one. The other eye witness, namely, Daljit Singh had also received injury. PW2 Daljit Singh when he appeared in Court stated that he was in his house due to some injuries on his head but he does not explain as to how, when and where he received injuries on his person. Daljit Singh was medico legally examined and injury was noticed on his person. Daljit Singh stated that on 8.1.2001, he came to know about the death of Avtar Singh by a firearm injury. Therefore, it is evident that Avtar Singh had received a firearm injury and he died on 8.1.2001. Injury was noticed on the person of Daljit Singh but he was not in a position to explain how, when and where he received the injury. PW3 Sushil Kumar also stated that Avtar Singh had died due to a firearm injury. He has admitted his signatures on different documents, i.e., Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH but stated that his signatures were Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 22 obtained in the police station. In cross-examination, he admitted that no complaint was sent to any higher authority that his signatures were obtained in the police station on blank papers. PW4 Harjinder Singh and PW5 Amandeep Singh, who are the eye witnesses, stated that Avtar Singh was shot dead but they did not support the prosecution case that the appellant Gurmeet Singh had fired a shot hitting the deceased. The appellant Gurmeet Singh in fact was serving in the Police Department. Therefore, it appears that out of fear, the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The record maintained by the hospital, i.e., injury reports of Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh, show that occurrence had taken place on 7.1.2001 at 8.15 p.m. near Sireesh Nursing Home by 6/7 unknown persons. Amrik Singh had brought Avtar Singh to the hospital. After admission of Avtar Singh, information was given to the police. According to the information, Avtar Singh was brought to the hospital by Amrik Singh. At about 11.30 p.m. on 7.1.2001, information was given to the police that Avtar Singh was brought to the hospital by Amrik Singh and this fact is clear from Ex.RRR, which is the Police Information Form of DMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Even as per the police proceedings (Ex.PA/1) recorded below the statement (Ex.PA) of Amrik Singh it is mentioned that a telephone message was received from the Incharge, New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana that injured Avtar Singh son of Amrik Singh and Amrik Singh son of Prem Singh residents of Prem Nagar were admitted in the hospital as they had received firearm injuries. Amrik Singh himself was also medico legally examined on 7.1.2001. Had Sushil Kumar not given information on telephone to the complainant, then the complainant would not have come to know about the occurrence in front of the house of the appellant Gurmeet Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 23 Singh. Due to receipt of information at the Police Station, the Investigating Officer had reached at the hospital. An application was moved as to whether the injured were fit to make statements or not. Avtar Singh was declared unfit to make a statement, whereas Amrik Singh was declared fit to make a statement. Then statement of Amrik Singh (Ex.PA) was recorded during the intervening night of 7/8.1.2001 at 2.30 a.m. On receipt of firearm injury, condition of Avtar Singh was serious. The incident had occurred in the presence of Amrik Singh. It is for this reason that Amrik Singh had shifted Avtar Singh to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Injuries on the person of Avtar Singh cannot be self suffered or self inflicted. No doubt in the statement (Ex.PA), Amrik Singh initially stated that Ravinder Singh had fired a shot hitting Avtar Singh and appellant Gurmeet Singh fired a shot hitting him but this fact could not be correctly recorded because at that time, Amrik Singh was nervous. His only son was struggling for life. The Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana along with the Investigating Officer had gone to the house of Amrik Singh. At that time the supplementary statement of Amrik Singh was shown to the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police, however, the supplementary statement was not kept on record. When a patient with firearm injury is admitted in a hospital, then the foremost duty and endeavour of the doctor is to give first aid and give treatment to the patient. The doctor is not required to inquire from the attendant as to who were the eye witnesses and who had caused the injuries. Initially it was recorded by the doctor in the injury report that 6/7 unknown persons had fired shots. The case history recorded by the doctor is to facilitate the treatment that is to be given to the patient. The same is not in the nature of a first Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 24 information report, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case not much weightage is to be given to the initial remarks recorded by the doctor that 6/7 unknown persons had fired shots.

The appellant Gurmeet Singh has also raked up seniority dispute between him and the Investigating Officer Santokh Singh. In fact, the Investigating Officer had no enmity with the appellant. Had the Investigating Officer been inimical towards the appellant due to out of turn promotions of the appellant Gurmeet Singh, then in the statement (Ex.PA) of Amrik Singh, the Investigating Officer could easily write a line that the fatal shot was given by the appellant Gurmeet Singh to Avtar Singh, deceased. There was no need to change the story later on. Statement of the complainant (Ex.PA) was recorded at 2.30 a.m. on 8.1.2001. FIR (Ex.PN) was recorded at 4.00 a.m. on 8.1.2001 and special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. on 8.1.2001. Supplementary statement of the complainant (Ex.PB) was recorded on 8.1.2001 after the death of Avtar Singh at about 5.45 p.m. The occurrence took place in front of the house of the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky when he along with his companions were drinking liquor. Then there was no need to leave out the appellant and name Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill as the main culprit. As discussed earlier, if the Investigating Officer had the intention to implicate the appellant Gurmeet Singh, then in Ex.PA, he could easily attribute the fatal blow on the person of deceased to the appellant. After the death of Avtar Singh, position was the same but when the complainant came to know that his statement was not correctly recorded, then his supplementary statement (Ex.PB) was recorded. Complainant had witnessed the occurrence after he had gone to the spot on receipt of information on telephone. There were 6/7 Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 25 persons including the appellant Gurmeet Singh when the complainant had reached at the place of occurrence. There was firing by a number of persons in the air at that time also. However, in the supplementary statement, the complainant mentions that the appellant Gurmeet Singh had fired a shot hitting the son of the complainant. Besides, the son of the complainant was thrashed by the appellant Gurmeet Singh. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, Amrik Singh, father of the deceased, became nervous and was not in a position to correctly state in his initial statement as to who had fired the shot hitting his son because some of the shots were fired in the air even. In the same occurrence, Amrik Singh himself had also received an injury, due to which he may have a confused state of mind.

Appellant Gurmeet Singh was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police Department on 16.12.1988 and he was promoted as Head Constable on 20.6.1989. He was given ORP (On Rank Promotion) of ASI on 4.3.1992. After that, he was given ORP (On Rank Promotion) of Inspector on 5.10.2000. ASI Pawan Kumar, Constable Parveen Kumar and SPO Budh Bahadur were provided as Gunmen to the appellant Gurmeet Singh by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana vide order (Ex.PU). This fact is clear from the statement of PW12 HC Amrik Singh. So, due to fear of the appellant Gurmeet Singh, the other eye witnesses, namely, Sushil Kumar, Avtar Singh, Chandal Bhatti, Navdeep Singh @ Bobby, Harjinder Singh @ Lucky, Daljit Singh and Amandeep Singh did not support the prosecution case.

One .38 bore revolver and 30 cartridges were issued to the appellant Gurmeet Singh. The weapon along with cartridges were not deposited back in the Malkhana and this fact is clear from the statement of Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 26 PW9 ASI Gurmeet Singh who had brought the record regarding disbursement of arms and ammunitions to different police officials. One assault rifle along with 4 magazines and 100 cartridges were issued to the appellant Gurmeet Singh on 9.11.1990 as per statement of PW13 HC Harbans Lal. Recovery of weapon was effected from the appellant Gurmeet Singh in the presence of PW16 Hoshiar Singh but he did not support the prosecution case. In cross-examination, he admitted that recovery memo (Ex.PBB) bears his signatures. In case, there was no recovery in the presence of PW16 Hoshiar Singh, then he would not have signed the said recovery memo. If his signatures were obtained under pressure, he would have made a complaint in this regard to the higher authorities. Therefore, the recovery of one .38 bore revolver and 30 live cartridges on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant Gurmeet Singh is established vide recovery memo (Ex.PBB).

The complainant had no enmity with the appellant before the present occurrence. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. Statement of one eye witness, which is cogent and convincing is sufficient to convict the accused if other eye witnesses out of fear of the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky serving in the Police Department fail to support the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer Santokh Singh while recording statement (Ex.PA), recorded that Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill had fired a shot hitting the deceased and the appellant Gurmeet Singh had fired a shot hitting the complainant. The doctor while preparing the injury report, recorded that 6/7 unknown persons had committed the crime on 7.1.2001 at 8.15 p.m. near Sireesh Nursing Home. The doctor in fact was to provide medical aid and had no occasion to enquire about the manner Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 27 of assault. The Investigating Officer and a number of other police officials were affected by the out of turn promotions given to the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky. A writ petition against the appellant Gurmeet Singh regarding his out of turn promotions was also pending. However, this fact alone by itself is not sufficient to hold that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards the appellant and due to enmity, the supplementary statement (Ex.PB) was recorded. The complainant was present at his shop and he had received a telephone message. After that he had gone to the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Avtar Singh was shifted to the hospital. Amrik Singh had also received injury in the same occurrence and was medico legally examined. When the complainant party had no enmity with the appellant, then there was no reason to leave the real culprit and name the appellant. Amrik Singh, complainant, is not a chance witness but had reached at the spot after he was informed on telephone by Sushil Kumar.

PW32 Dr.Sachin Jindal recorded the history of Avtar Singh and he mentioned it as a case of alleged history of gun shot injury on 7.1.2011 at about 8.15 p.m. near Sireesh Nursing Home, Maya Nagar, Ludhiana by 6/7 unknown persons. Dr.Jindal in his statement in the Court has also stated that on the same day, he medico legally examined Amrik Singh, complainant. In his case history, it is recorded that there was alleged history of gun shot fire on 7.1.2001 at about 8.15 p.m. There was no history of loss of consciousness. In the said history of gun shot injury, it is not mentioned that it was by 6/7 unknown persons as is recorded in the case of Avtar Singh. Therefore, the stand of the appellant Gurmeet Singh that injuries were caused by 6/7 unknown persons is without any merit. In the normal Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 28 course, on a patient being brought to the hospital, the doctor treats the patient by recording his case history but does not make enquiries as to who had attacked him or how many assailants were there.

Amrik Singh, complainant, it appears does not have any say in the Police Department. On the other hand, appellant Gurmeet Singh had got out of turn promotions in the police department. He even disobeyed the orders of SSP by not vacating the official quarter on his transfer. Therefore, he was in a position to pressurise the Investigating Officer. Amrik Singh, however, was not in a position to pressurise the Investigating Officer to record his supplementary statement regarding the fatal blow to Avtar Singh being given by the appellant Gurmeet Singh and not by Ravinder Singh. When the incident came to the notice of higher authorities, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police, who had gone to the house of the complainant, then the Investigating Officer had no alternative except to record the correct version of the complainant in the shape of supplementary statement (Ex.PB). Supplementary statement was shown to the Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police when they had gone to the house of the complainant but that statement was not on the record but was kept by the Investigating Officer. So, recording of supplementary statement (Ex.PB) is not an after thought.

After the death of Avtar Singh, inquest report (Ex.PL) was prepared but while preparing the inquest report, there was no reference to the supplementary statement (Ex.PB). Inquest report in fact was prepared after the death of Avtar Singh on 9.1.2001, whereas the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 8.1.2001. As per supplementary statement (Ex.PB), appellant Gurmeet Singh had fired a shot Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 29 hitting the deceased Avtar Singh but while preparing inquest report on 9.1.2001, there is a note by the Investigating Officer that the fatal blow was given by Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. This would show that the Investigating Officer while preparing the inquest report on 9.1.2001, intentionally ignored the supplementary statement (Ex.PB), which had been recorded on 8.1.2001. As per the supplementary statement (Ex.PB), the fatal shot to the deceased Avtar Singh was given by the appellant Gurmeet Singh. However, the Investigating Officer while preparing inquest report on 9.1.2001 gave a note that the fatal shot was given by Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill. After death, the inquest report is prepared and while preparing the inquest report, the Investigating Officer is to report as to what is the condition of the body, whether some articles were noticed on the person of the body, whether there was an injury on the body and which articles were lying near the body. The Investigating Officer is not to record as to who were the eye witnesses and who had fired the shot hitting the deceased. As such while preparing the inquest report, an effort has been made by the Investigating Officer to create a doubt in the prosecution case so as to help the appellant Gurmeet Singh. PW2 Daljit Singh, PW3 Sushil Kumar, PW4 Harjinder Singh and PW5 Amandeep Singh are the eye witnesses but they failed to support the prosecution case out of fear of the appellant who was serving in the Police Department. According to the prosecution case, Daljit Singh received injury in the same occurrence. PW2 Daljit Singh when he appeared in Court stated that on 7.1.2001, he was present at his residence on account of some injuries sustained on his head but he failed to explain where and how he received the injuries. PW3 Sushil Kumar admitted his signatures on different Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 30 documents, i.e., Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH but he stated that his signatures were obtained in the police station. No complaint in this regard was made to the higher authorities that his signatures were obtained in the Police Station. He is not an illiterate person. In case, he had not seen the occurrence and there was no recovery in his presence, then how is it that he had signed different documents in the police station. There was no pressure on him and if his signatures were obtained on blank papers in the police station, then Sushil Kumar should have made complaints to higher authorities. Instead of making complaints to the higher authorities regarding his signatures being obtained in the police station, Sushil Kumar remained silent. Harjinder Singh and Amandeep Singh, PWs, stated that Avtar Singh was shot dead and if they had not witnessed the occurrence, then how do they say that Avtar Singh was shot dead. If they were not present at the time of occurrence, then they were liable to state that they had not witnessed the occurrence and they could not state whether Avtar Singh was shot dead or not.

Defence version of the appellant Gurmeet Singh is that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards him due to his out of turn promotions. A writ petition was filed against him because he got promotions out of turn. Kuldeep Singh, SSP, was also inimical towards him because he failed to vacate the house on his transfer. Gurmeet Singh appellant had a dispute with his wife. Avtar Singh Brar, Ex. Minister, is related to the wife of the appellant Gurmeet Singh. So, due to enmity with the Investigating Officer, the appellant Gurmeet Singh had been falsely implicated. However, if the appellant Gurmeet Singh was to be falsely implicated, then in the statement (Ex.PA), it was very easy for the Investigating Officer to Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 31 write a line that he had fired the shot hitting the deceased and Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill had fired a shot hitting the complainant. This having not being done, it would clearly show that the case against the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky and others was investigated in a proper manner though initially doubt was sought to be created in favour of the appellant. In fact, the position is that the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky says that the Investigating Officer Santokh Singh was inimical to him and the complainant says that the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky being a police officer had influence in the police department and, therefore, proper investigation was not carried out. However, from the perusal of the evidence and material on record, it is quite evident that it is the appellant Gurmeet Singh who had fired the fatal shot which resulted in the death of Avtar Singh son of the complainant Amrik Singh.

One .38 bore revolver along with 30 cartridges was issued to the appellant Gurmeet Singh and the same was recovered from him. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PJJ) shows that the weapon was used in the firing. One AK-47 No.88321247 was also allotted to the appellant Gurmeet Singh on 9.11.1990 and this weapon was recovered from his gunman Pawan Kumar. One mouser along with magazine was issued to his gunman as per order of the appellant Gurmeet Singh on 12.6.1990 and the same was recovered from Ravinder Singh. Cartridges recovered from the spot were fired from the pistol and AK-47 rifle. Death was due to firearm injury. After going through the evidence on the file, the learned trial Court rightly opined that the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky had fired a shot hitting the deceased Avtar Singh.

Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill fired a shot hitting the Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 32 complainant. However, the medical evidence on record does not corroborate the prosecution case in this regard. PW32 Dr. Sachin Jindal stated that nature of injury is to be investigated and opined that weapon used is blunt weapon. Amrik Singh while appearing as PW1, stated that bullet hit him, then his turban fell off from his head. When the injury was noticed on the person of Amrik Singh, it was not a firearm injury. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill. Initially there were 9 accused who were tried but 3 were acquitted on 8.12.2004 before their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded. As per Ex.PA and Ex.PB, no specific role to the other accused, who were acquitted by the learned trial Court is there. As per prosecution case, they were also armed and if they were present at the spot and were the members of an unlawful assembly, then they are also liable for the injuries caused to the deceased and to Amrik Singh.

An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for additional evidence to clarify cross-examination but the same was dismissed on 28.9.2006. With the final decision on 30.9.2006, the application had become infructuous. The order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the other accused is sound and the learned trial Court has recorded convincing reasons for acquitting them. As discussed earlier, 9 accused were challaned but the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky was convicted and others were acquitted. A judgment of acquittal is to be reversed if there is a misreading of evidence on the file or the judgment is perverse. When a possible view was taken by the learned trial Court keeping in view the evidence on the file, then the Appellate Court is not to reverse the judgment simply on the allegation that there is a possibility of a different view. In Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 33 these circumstances, we find that the reasons given for the acquittal of the accused other than the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky are sound. The learned trial Court noticed that the injury on the head of Amrik Singh, complainant has not been proved to be a firearm injury. The Investigating Officer did not care to take the turban of the injured in his possession. A bullet had grazed against the turban thereby making it fall. This would definitely leave behind some evidence of its contact with such turban, which evidence was missing. PW32 Dr. Sachin Jindal found a cut lacerated wound 3 cms in length near the left eye brow on the left side of the forehead of Amrik Singh. The margins were irregular. The doctor had expressed definite opinion that the injury found on the person of Amrik Singh was caused by a blunt weapon. It was observed that Amrik Singh had testified that the muzzle of the pistol was approximately 6 to 7 feet away from him at the time of firing. It was observed that the injury was caused by a blunt weapon. It was noticed that the injuries produced by the projectile discharged from firearms may present the characteristics of lacerated wounds but this particular injury did not seem to have been caused by a bullet fired from a distance of 6 to 7 feet and the injury was caused by a blunt weapon. It was also observed that there was enough evidence on the record to prove that the investigation of the case was tainted. Every effort was made by the police to create confusion in the case with an intent to cause wrongful gain to the prime accused Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky, a Police Inspector. Therefore, we are of the view that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court are sound.

Learned counsel for the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky has contended that even if the prosecution case is held to be established, though Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 34 there is no reason for the same, in that case the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky would be liable for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC as alleged injury had been caused without any premeditation and at the spur of moment in a heat of passion when there was skirmish with Avtar Singh son of the complainant and other boys passing through the street in front of the house of the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC is liable to be modified to that of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

After giving a thoughtful consideration, we find that the case is not the one which could be said to fall under any part of Section 304 IPC. The appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky had caused firearm injury hitting Avtar Singh on his head. The appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky along with the other accused had parked their cars in front of his house and were drinking liquor near their cars and when Avtar Singh was passing through the open street to go to the Ram Sharnam Temple, he was stopped by the appellant Gurmeet Singh and others. On their persistence, exchange of hot words took place and in that, the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky fired with the firearm which is a .38 bore revolver on the person of Avtar Singh on his head, which resulted in his death. Therefore, it is not a case which could be said to have occurred at the spur of moment. Rather it has occurred as the appellant Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky had taken over the public path in front of his house and has been obstructing the passersby to pass from there and it can be said that he had provoked the incident, which has resulted in the death of Avtar Singh. Therefore, appellant Gurmeet Singh having provoked the incident it cannot be said that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the case is one which would fall Crl.Appeal No. 56-DB of 2007 35 within the parameters of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

For the reasons recorded above, Crl. Appeal No.56-DB of 2007 (Gurmeet Singh @ Pinky vs. State of Punjab), Crl. Appeal No.498- DBA of 2007 (State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill and others), Crl. Appeal No.1112-SBA of 2007 ( State of Punjab vs. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu Gill), Crl.Revision No.2507 of 2006 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others), Crl. Revision No.295 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Revision No.296 of 2007 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) are dismissed.




                                                    ( JORA SINGH )
                                                        JUDGE



31.1.2012                                           ( S.S.SARON )
pk                                                      JUDGE