Chhinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-458-DB-2005 (O&M)
Reserved on: October 13, 2026
Date of Pronouncement: November 04, 2026
Uploaded on: November 04, 2026
Chhinder Singh and another
...Appellants
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARMEET SINGH DEOL
Argued by: Mr.Dilraj Singh Bhinder, Ms.Navkiran Bajwa and
Mr.Harshal Jariyal, Advocates for the appellants.
Ms.Jagriti Kalia, AAG Punjab
for the respondent-State.

ARCHANA PURI, J.
Appellants-Chhinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur have filed the
present appeal to assail the judgment dated 12.05.2005, whereby, they were
held guilty and convicted for commission of murder of Gurmeet Singh. Vide
separate order of sentence of even date, both the appellants were sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default
whereof, each of them, was further directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months.
The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, complainant Karnail Singh s/o Ishar Singh, r/o village Ablu, had
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -2-
three sons, who were married. Jagjit Singh and Malkiat Singh were living
separate, whereas, younger son of the complainant, namely, Gurmeet Singh
was residing with him. On 05.10.2002, at about 3.00 a.m., Gurmeet Singh
woke up and went out of the house. When he did not return for some time,
Karnail Singh along with his son Malkiat Singh had proceeded in search of
Gurmeet Singh. At about 4.00 a.m., when they reached near the house of
Chhinder Singh, they heard some disturbance from the house of Chhinder
Singh. They entered the house of Chhinder Singh through a window, which
was lying open. At that time, an electric bulb was emitting light, in the house
of Chhinder Singh. When they reached near the door of the room, they saw
Paramjit Kaur holding left arm of Gurmeet Singh and Chhinder Singh was
having a pestle (ghotna) in his hand. Chhinder Singh gave pestle blows on
the head of Gurmeet Singh, as a result whereof, he died instantaneously.
Complainant and his son Malkiat Singh had raised alarm. Thereupon, both
Chhinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur fled away from the place of occurrence,
along with the pestle.
Soon after the occurrence, complainant Karnail Singh, while leaving
his son Malkiat Singh near the dead body of Gurmeet Singh, had gone to the
house of Gurdeep Singh, Panch and thereupon, in his company, complainant
had proceeded further to the police station for lodging the report. Enroute,
the complainant met the police party and got recorded his statement to
Inspector Balwinder Singh, on the basis whereof, FIR was got registered. In
his statement, complainant Karnail Singh had stated that Chhinder Singh
was suspecting Gurmeet Singh to be having illicit relations with his wife
Paramjit Kaur.
Thereupon, Inspector Balwinder Singh took up the investigation of the
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -3-
case. In the company of complainant and other police officials, he had
proceeded to the place of occurrence. Photography of dead body of Gurmeet
Singh was got conducted and even, videography of the place of occurrence
was got done through photographer Lakhbir Singh. Rough site plan of the
spot of occurrence was prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted and
inquest report was prepared. Post-mortem examination on the dead body
was got conducted through ASI Sukhdev Singh and Head Constable
Darshan Singh. After the needful was done, the concerned doctor had
handed over the clothes of the deceased to ASI Sukhdev Singh, who had
further handed over the same to Inspector Balwinder Singh. Even, the dead
body of Gurmeet Singh was handed over to Karnail Singh and Malkiat
Singh.
On 09.10.2002, Inspector Balwinder Singh had arrested both the
accused. During the course of interrogation, in pursuance of the disclosure
statement made by Chhinder Singh, the pestle was recovered from his
residence, underneath the heap of chaff, which was taken into possession
vide separate memo. Site plan of the spot of recovery was also got prepared.
Memos relating to the personal search of both the accused were prepared.
Even, the memos, qua the information regarding the arrest of both the
accused having given to the relatives, were also prepared. Investigating
Officer also took into possession the video film, eight photographs and eight
negatives, vide separate recovery memo. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded.
On completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court. After due compliance of
Section 207 Cr.P.C., on the basis of the material coming forth, charge was
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -4-
framed against both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In endeavour to establish its case, the prosecution examined as
many as four witnesses.
PW-1 Dr.Sushil Gupta, Emergency Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,
Bathinda has deposed about conducting of the post-mortem examination, on
the dead body of Gurmeet Singh. He had narrated the detail of the injuries,
found on the dead body, which are as herein given:-
“i) Dark reddish colour abrasion of 6 X 1 cms. at the lateral and
back of left elbow.
ii) Bruise of dark colour 6X 6 cms. on the left fore-head.
iii) Bruise of 14 X 6 cms. dark colour at the right fore-head near
the ear-. On dissection there was dark colour blood and fracture
of right frontal bone in pieces was seen.
iv) Bruise of 16 X 4 cms. dark colour present at the front and
both sides of the neck. On dissection 'V' shaped shows
haemorrhage under subcutaneous tissue surrounding the bruise
area laceration was present on the wind pipe (trachaea) fracture
of larngial cartilage and ends of hyoid bone was present.”
This witness also opined that the cause of death in his opinion was due
to asphyxia and haemmorhage, as a result of injuries No.3 and 4, which were
ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. He proved the copy of post-mortem examination report
Ex.PA, pictorial diagram Ex.PA/1 and Ex.PA/2. Ex.PC is the inquest report.
This witness further deposed that possibility of injury No.4 by way of
pressing the neck with hands, cannot be ruled out. He also testified that
injury No.1 may be the result of fall and possibility of injuries No.2 and 3
with pestle, cannot be ruled out.
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
PW-2 Rajinder Kumar Gupta prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PD.

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -5-
PW-3 Malkeet Singh, is an eye witness, who was accompanying the
complainant, at the relevant time and has deposed about the manner of
having reached the house of Chhinder Singh and having spotted Gurmeet
Singh, being subjected to assault by Chhinder Singh and his wife. He also
deposed about Paramjit Kaur to be holding Gurmeet Singh from his left arm
and further about Chhinder Singh holding pestle in his hand. He had given
two pestle blows on the head of Gurmeet Singh, as a result whereof,
Gurmeet Singh had fallen down and Chhinder Singh pressed his neck with
his hands and Gurmeet Singh died at the spot. He further deposed that in
pursuance of alarm raised by them, accused had ran away from the spot,
along with weapon of offence. This witness further deposed that Chhinder
Singh was suspecting that Gurmeet Singh was having illicit relations with
his wife Paramjit Kaur and also deposed about proceeding of his father to
inform the police, regarding the occurrence and thereupon, he returned back
along with the police.
PW-4 Inspector Balwinder Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who
has deposed about the manner of conducting of the investigation, as detailed
aforesaid.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that Karnail Singh
had died on 19.10.2004 and as such, he could not be examined as
prosecution witness, during the course of trial.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating
circumstances, appearing against the accused, were put to them, in their
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, they denied the prosecution
version and pleaded innocence.
Accused-Chhinder Singh, had taken the plea, which is reproduced as
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -6-
herein given:-
“I am innocent. On the day of occurrence, our buffalo delivered
a calf and I was taking care of the buffalo and the calf in the
cattle shed of house. My wife was inside our residential room.
At about mid-night of 4/5-10-2002, Gurmeet Singh scaled over
the wall of our house and committed larking house breaking by
night end came inside the room of my wife. He opened his
PYJAMA and tried to commit rape with my wife by raising her
legs and opening her salvar, She raised alarm, which attracted
me. I strangulated Gurmeet Singh to death in order to save
honour of my wife and in exercise of right of private defence of
a my wife and of my property. Gurmeet Singh was stronger
than me. had not killed him, he would have killed me. Before
he was strangulated, he tried to strangulate me by putting his
hand in my neck. Then I informed the Jagsir Singh, Sarpanch. I
and Jagsir Singh, Sarpanch went to the house of Sarwan Singh
Master and informed the police on his telephone. Police arrived
at the spot and called Karnail Singh and Malkiat Singh from
their field where they were guarding their paddy crop in the
morning and false case was registered against me and my wife
after deliberation and consultation.”
The plea taken by accused Paramjit Kaur reads as under:-
“I am innocent. On the night between 4/5.10.2002, I was lying
on my bed in my room, while my husband was taking care of
our buffalo in our cattle shed. At about mid-night Gurmeet
Singh deceased scaled over wall of our house and entered into
my room. He opened his PYJAMA and raised my legs after
forcibly opening my salvar and attempted to commit rape with
me. I raised alarm, which attracted my husband, who reached in
my room and accused grappled with him and tried to press the
neck of my husband. My husband in exercise of right of my
private defence and right of private defence of property,
strangulated Gurmeet Singh to death.”
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -7-
In defence, accused examined DW-1 Jagsir Singh, Sarpanch of
the village, who deposed about Chhinder Singh having disclosed him about
Gurmeet Singh having entered his house and tried to commit rape upon his
wife and on that account, he killed Gurmeet Singh. He also deposed that he
informed the police on telephone and thereafter, the police had come.
Karnail Singh and Malkiat Singh were called from their field and thereafter,
the writing work was done, at the spot.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
defence counsel, learned trial Court had formulated points for determination,
as herein given:-
“i) Whether accused Chhinder Singh has wrongly inflicted
injuries with intention to kill Gurmeet Singh and thereby the
ingredients of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code are made out against him and that accused Paramjit Kaur
shared common intention to murder him and thereby
ingredients of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. are
made out against her beyond reasonable doubt?
ii) Whether the plea of self defence is borne out from the
evidence on the file?”
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned trial
Court concluded about accused Chhinder Singh with the common intention
of Paramjit Kaur, having committed the murder of Gurmeet Singh and thus,
they had committed the offence under Section 302 IPC as well as Section
302/24 IPC respectively and they were sentenced, as detailed in the earlier
portion of the judgment.
Being aggrieved, both the appellants have filed the present
appeal.
VINEET GULATI We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -8-
learned State counsel and with their able assistance, gone through the trial
Court record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that when the stringent punishment is provided, then stricter should be onus
of proof. Considering this principle for appraisal of evidence in the case in
hand, counsel for the appellant, opened his arguments, while asserting that
the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery, as put forth by the
prosecution and that conviction of the appellants suffer from infirmity and
perversity. In fact, he submits that unfortunately, complainant Karnail
Singh, who had initiated the action, departed from the world before his
testimony could be recorded, during the course of trial. In fact, the version
of the prosecution, rests solely upon the testimony of PW-3 Malkiat Singh,
who is related and interested witness, besides the medical evidence. Even,
his accompanying the complainant, in search of deceased Gurmeet Singh, at
the relevant time, is visibly a padded version. Moreover, the complainant, in
his statement Ex.PF, had stated about appellant No.1 having given blows to
Gurmeet Singh with the pestle. Nothing is stated, with regard to the manner
of injuries caused/as existing, upon the neck of the dead body of Gurmeet
Singh. However, in the post-mortem report Ex.PA, there is there is mention
of four injuries, on the dead body. Seat of injury No.4 is neck. Even, the
cause of death was opined by the doctor to be asphyxia and haemmorhage,
which was stated to be result of injuries No.3 and 4, which are sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus, there is variance in the
ocular and the medical evidence.
Further, learned counsel for the appellants contended that
deceased Gurmeet Singh had scaled the wall of the house of the appellants
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -9-
and in the discreet manner, reached their residential room and attempted to
commit rape upon appellant No.2-Paramjit Kaur. In pursuance of the alarm
raised by Paramjit Kaur, appellant No.1-Chhinder Singh was attracted to the
spot of occurrence, who had then lost control over himself and strangulated
Gurmeet Singh to death, to save the honour of his wife and in exercise of
right of private defence of the property.
Also, counsel for the appellants submitted that besides the Court being
deprived of testimony of the complainant, as he had died, there are various
other snappings in the prosecution version. Counsel pointed out that as per
PW-4 ASI Balwinder Singh, the investigating officer, the supplementary
statement of complainant was recorded, but however, the same had not seen
the light of the day. The investigating officer also deposed that photographs
and videography of the dead body and the scene of occurrence was got
conducted, but the photographer, namely, Lakhbir Singh, though cited as
witness, but he has not been examined and given up as unnecessary witness.
It was in the re-examination of the Investigating Officer that cassette handed
over by the photographer, was proved as Ex.P19, but however, in the cross-
examination, the said witness had stated that he had not gone through the
contents of the cassette Ex.P19, by playing the same. It is contended that
these loopholes do point out about the prosecution not coming forth with
true version of taking place of the occurrence.
So far as, defence plea is concerned, counsel for the appellants
submitted that presence of deceased Gurmeet Singh, in the house of the
appellants and that too at midnight and reaching the residential room as well
as alarm raised by Paramjit Kaur, upon which, Chhinder Singh reached the
spot, are the circumstances, which strengthen the probability of the defence
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -10-
version. Counsel also relied upon plethora of case law to substantiate his
submissions. However, suffice to make reference to Darshan Singh vs. State
of Punjab and another, 2010(2) SCC 333, wherein, principles of law, vis-a-
vis, the right of private defence were summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that reasons
given by the trial Court regarding the order of conviction of the appellants,
are based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence led by the
prosecution in the case. She submits that testimony of PW-3 Malkiat Singh
is clear, cogent and satisfactory with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and the appellants had no right of private defence, to cause death of
Gurmeet Singh. The plea of right of private defence taken by the appellants
is not tenable and acceptable. The evidence of PW-3 is probable, consistent
and creditworthy, which ought to be relied upon and accepted, vis-a-vis,
version of the prosecution.
Before adverting to the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to
mention that when there is direct evidence in the form of sole witness
testimony, there exists no legal impediment, on convicting solely on the
basis of that, since what matters is the quality and not the quantity of the
witness. As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a
single witness, though, uncorroborated. One credible witness, outweighs the
testimony of number of other witnesses of different character. Nowhere, the
law requires plurality of witnesses in proof of the crime. It is the discretion
of the Presiding Judge, which comes into play, while considering the facts
and circumstances of each case.
Herein, PW-3 Malkiat Singh, is the brother of deceased Gurmeet
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -11-
Singh. No doubt, in the statement Ex.PF, on the basis whereof, proceedings
were initiated, complainant Karnail Singh had stated about his elder two
sons, other than the deceased, to be living separate, but however, in Ex.PF,
nowhere, it is mentioned about the sons to be living in the separate houses,
nor it is so coming forth, in the evidence. It is a matter of common
knowledge that as and when, in Indian conditioning, the family grows,
children are separated in mess and start residing in the house with the
allocation of separate rooms, usually in the same house. Otherwise also,
taking into consideration the time of going away of Gurmeet Singh from the
house, it is quite obvious that father will bank upon his other sons for
proceeding in search of his son Gurmeet Singh. So, in these circumstances,
Malkiat Singh accompanying the complainant is the most natural conduct,
though, his testimony with regard to the eye witness account is to be
appraised in accord with the version, as set up.
Taking it to be so, most important is the recording of
supplementary statement, as stated by the investigating officer, which had
not seen the light of the day and also not stated by Malkiat Singh. Besides
the same, even, videofilm, has though been prepared, but the photographer
has not been examined and above all, the investigating officer stated that he
had never gone through the contents of the cassette Ex.P19, by playing the
same. It thus raises eye-brows qua the prosecution version.
Even though, learned trial Court had considered the aspect that the
deceased was taken forcibly, but however, there is no evidence, qua the
same, coming on record. PW-3 Malkiat Singh, in cross-examination had
stated about one pair of chappal lying inside the courtyard and other was
lying outside the courtyard, near the gate and the police had not taken into
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -12-
possession those chappal. Voluntarily, he had stated that his mother had
taken those pair of chappal and that he had not stated to the police about the
chappal. However, there is nothing, at the instance of the investigating
officer, coming about the pair of chappal lying in this manner, as stated by
Malkiat Singh and also, nothing has come on record, about the mother of
deceased, having come to the spot of occurrence. However, this version, as
such, has not been considered by the trial Court. It is unthinkable that
chappal would be taken away from the place of occurrence, more
particularly, when nowhere, it is the version about the mother of the
deceased, having come to the place of occurrence. In any case, this is
intermeddling in the crime scene. Therefore, learned trial Court fell in error,
on the basis of this circumstance, to conclude about the deceased having not
gone to the house of the appellants voluntarily, but, could have been taken
away by the accused. Moreover, the deceased was grown up person. He
could not be forcibly taken away by any one person and that too, without
any alarm or there being resistance in any form, without any struggle marks.
Anyhow, when the presence of the deceased in the house of appellant,
as such, is not disputed and that undisputedly, deceased reached the
residential room, where appellant No.2-Paramjit Kaur was present, he, in
any manner, cannot be said to be not having ill-intention. However, the
same remains under wraps, due to the death of Gurmeet Singh. But, the
circumstances do speak about the same.
It was noted in the post-mortem examination report Ex.PA
about semen voided out from the penis. PW-1 Dr.Sushil Gupta, who
conducted the post-mortem examination, also stated in the cross-
examination that possibility of semen coming out from the penis in this case,
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -13-
if the victim attempted to commit rape, cannot be ruled out. Merely
ejaculation of semen from penis, found while carrying out autopsy, would
not lead to believe that Gurmeet Singh, must have tried to commit rape upon
Paramjit Kaur, wife of appellant No.1-Chhinder Singh, but however, the
same ought to be considered in the light of the defence, so put forth in the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is possibility of ejaculation of
semen for varied reasons, but however, the fact of the same, as such, cannot
be overlooked, in the light of defence so taken.
Though, in Ex.PF, it is stated that Chhinder Singh was suspecting
about Gurmeet Singh to be having illicit relations with his wife, but qua the
same, no evidence has been brought forth. Rather, PW-3 Malkiat Singh,
while facing cross-examiantion had also admitted that Chhinder Singh had
never made any complaint in this regard to him or to his father or in the
panchayat, which fact also belies the version, as set up by the prosecution.
Rather, taking of this plea probablizes the presence of deceased in the house
of the appellants and the role, as assigned in the defence version.
Having gone through the evidence brought on record and case
law cited by counsel for the appellants, it is apt to make reference to
Sections 96, 97 and 100 IPC, which reads as herein given:-
“Section 96 : Things done in private defence:
- Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the
right of private defence.
Section 97 : Right of private defence of the body and of
property:
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in
section 99, to defend-
First.- His own body, and the body of any other person, against
any offence affecting the human body;
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Secondly.- The property, whether movable or immovable, of

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -14-
himself or of any other person, against any act which is an
offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief
or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft,
robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 100 : When the right of private defence of the body
extends to causing death:
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the
restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the
voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant,
if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of
any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
xxx xxxx xxxx
Thirdly:- An assault with the intention of committing rape…..”
It is pertinent to mention that right of private defence is valuable right
and is widely recognized in civilized societies, with certain reasonable
limits. Every person has right to defend his own body and body of another
against any offence, affecting the human body. The right of self-defence
commences, as soon as reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus
with the duration of such apprehension. Again, it is defensive and not
retributive right and can be exercised, only in those cases, where there is no
time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Considering the evidence brought on record and ratio
propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the principles summed up
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vis-a-vis, exercise of private defence, it is
pertinent to note the presence of the deceased in the house of the appellants,
in the dead of the night, is a significant factor, which lends credence to the
defence version, as put forth by the appellants and renders it fairly probable.
There is nothing to indicate that the deceased Gurmeet Singh was forcibly
VINEET GULATI taken to the house of the appellants. There was no mark of such injury of
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-458-DB-2005 -15-
carrying forcibly or he being dragged and forcibly taken to the house of
appellants. Such being the position, it probablizes the plea taken by the
appellants and by virtue of Section 100(3) IPC, the right of private defence
is extendable to the facts of the present case.
We, thus find that the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the conviction as well as the
sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside.
The pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARCHANA PURI)
JUDGE
(HARMEET SINGH DEOL)
JUDGE
November 04, 2026
Vgulati
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VINEET GULATI
2026.11.04 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document