Vinay Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 08.09.2026
Pronounced on: 11.09.2026
Uploaded on: 14.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
1. CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008
Vinay Kumar and others
…Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
2. CRR No.1320 of 2008
Gokal Chand
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Argued by:- Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate and
Mr. Inderjeet Sihag, Advocate
for the appellants in CRA-S-602-SB-2008
and respondents No.2 to 4 in CRR-1320-2008.
Mr. Ankit Bhincher, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-1320-2008.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J .
1. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of
the above said appeal and revision petition together as the same arise out of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -2-
a common judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in case FIR No.281 dated 26.11.2002 registered
under Sections 307, 365, 342, 323/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the
Arms Act at Police Station City Abohar.
2. CRA-S-602-SB-2008 has been filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur,
whereby accused Jagsir Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Bhagwan Das alias Bhani
Ram, Vijay Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were acquitted of the charges framed
against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt, whereas the
appellants Anand Kumar, Shagan Lal alias Kinku and Vinay Kumar were
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Convicts Under Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
Section awarded default of
payment of fine
Anand Kumar Section R.I. for 03 years Rs.10,000/- R.I. for 03
307 IPC months
Shagan Lal @
Kinku and
Vinay Kumar
Section
307/34
IPC
R.I. for 02 years
and 06 months
each
Rs.10,000/- R.I. for 03
each months each
Anand Kumar,
Shagan Lal @
Kinku and
Vinay Kumar
Section R.I. for 06 -- --
323 IPC months each
Anand Kumar Section 27
of the
Arms Act
R.I. for 02 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 01 month
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period of detention already undergone by the convicts was ordered to be set
off against the substantive sentences awarded to them.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -3-
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant
Dev Chand, resident of village Ghallu, is an agriculturist by profession. On
25.11.2004, he, along with Gokal Chand and Paramjit Singh, Sarpanch, had
gone to the office of the C.D.P.O., Abohar, to enquire about the old-age
pension cases of certain persons. On completion of their work, they set out
for their village Ghallu in a jeep bearing registration No. PB-15-A-5580
belonging to Paramjit Singh, Sarpanch, which was being driven by him.
The complainant was sitting by his side, whereas Gokal Chand was sitting
on the back seat of the jeep. When they crossed M/s Kumar Filling Station,
Fazilka Road, Abohar, at about 5.00 p.m., a jeep which was going ahead of
them intercepted their jeep and another jeep stopped behind their jeep.
From the jeep, which had intercepted their jeep, about 7-8 persons got
down. From the jeep which had stopped behind their jeep, accused Anand
Kumar, contractor, armed with a .12-bore small gun, Shagan Lal alias
Kinku armed with a dang , Vijay Kumar alias Billu armed with a revolver
and the driver of the jeep, Bhani alias Bhagwan Dass, got down. Amongst
them was accused Vinay Kumar, who was a wine contractor and was also
armed with a dang . He also got down along with some more persons.
Accused Anand Kumar, contractor, hurled abuses at Paramjit Singh,
Sarpanch, stating that they would teach him a lesson for interfering in their
business. Thereafter, he fired two shots from his .12-bore gun straight
towards them with an intention to kill them. Out of the two shots, one hit
Paramjit Singh, Sarpanch, on the neck and on the back side of his head,
whereas the second shot hit the rear portion of the jeep.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -4-
4. Thereafter, as stated by Gokal Chand, accused Sanjiv Kumar
and 2-3 other persons got the complainant and Gokal Chand out of their
jeep and took them to their main liquor vend, where they were given fist
and dang blows, causing injuries near the left eye, on the right side of the
back, both the hands and the right knee of the complainant, besides causing
injuries on the forehead and right knee of Gokal Chand. Accused Sanjiv
Kumar is stated to have told them that they had taken the taste of meddling
with Shiv Lal Shoki. In the meanwhile, on hearing the noise, the owner of
Kumar Filling Station, Abohar, namely Vijay Kumar son of Lal Chand, was
attracted to the spot and other passers-by also gathered there. On seeing
them, all the accused persons fled away from the spot in their jeep. Vijay
Kumar, owner of the filling station, took them to Ghallu in their jeep,
where they found that the brother of Paramjit Singh, Sarpanch, namely
Charanjit Singh, and one Dalip Kumar, President of village Nihalkhera,
were already standing there. They were informed by Dev Chand through
his cell phone. Thereafter, Charanjit Singh and Dalip Kumar got the injured
admitted in Civil Hospital, Fazilka. On receipt of the request regarding
admission of the injured, the police proceedings were set into motion.
5. On receiving information regarding admission of the injured
in Civil Hospital, Fazilka, a police party headed by SI Jagroop Singh
reached Civil Hospital, Fazilka. Dev Chand, complainant, was declared fit
to make a statement and his statement Ex.P7 was recorded. As stated
therein, the motive behind the occurrence was that Gokal Chand and Ashok
Kumar, residents of Ghallu, had taken a liquor vend on commission basis
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -5-
from Shiv Lal, a wine contractor of Abohar. About one month prior to the
occurrence, the party of Shiv Lal had levelled allegations against Gokal
Chand and others that they were smuggling liquor from outside and were
illegally selling the same from their vend. On account thereof, the party of
Shiv Lal had confiscated the security of Gokal Chand and others. Paramjit
Singh, Sarpanch, had helped Gokal Chand and others and, consequently,
Anand Kumar and the other accused, in furtherance of their common
intention, had fired shots at them with an intention to kill them and had also
caused injuries to them.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the formal FIR
Ex.P7/B was registered at Police Station City Abohar under Sections 307,
365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. The investigation was thereafter taken up
by SI Jagroop Singh, PW-12, who visited the place of occurrence and
carried out the necessary investigation.
7. On 27.11.2004, after injured Gokal Chand was declared fit to
make a statement, his statement was recorded vide endorsement Ex.P41/A
on his application Ex.P41. In his statement, he also named the involvement
of two other accused, namely Jagsir Singh and Dilbagh Singh, in the
occurrence. Jagsir Singh was alleged to be carrying a .12-bore gun and was
also stated to have fired shots from the same. The third injured, Paramjit
Singh, Sarpanch, was examined on 09.12.2004 after he was declared fit to
make a statement. In his statement, he also named Jagsir Singh and Dilbagh
Singh as being involved in the occurrence. According to him also, Jagsir
Singh and Dilbagh Singh were carrying a .12-bore gun and a dang ,
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -6-
respectively, at the time of the occurrence.
8. Jagsir Singh was thereafter arrested on 06.12.2004. During his
interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.P44, which led to the
recovery of the gun stated to have been used by him in the commission of
the offence. The said gun was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P45.
Dilbagh Singh and Vinay Kumar were arrested on 09.12.2004 and two
dangs were recovered at their instance vide memos Ex.P48 and Ex.P49.
Accused Bhani alias Bhagwan Dass was arrested on 29.12.2004 while
travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. PB-15-B-1652, which was also
taken into possession vide memo Ex.P52.
9. During the course of investigation, accused Anand Kumar,
contractor, Shagan Lal alias Kinku, Vijay Kumar alias Billu and Sanjiv
Kumar were found innocent and, after completion of the necessary
investigative formalities, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of
only four accused, namely Jagsir Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Bhani alias
Bhagwan Dass and Vijay Kumar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. However, during the course
of trial, the other four accused, namely Anand Kumar, Shagan Lal alias
Kinku, Vijay Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar, who had been declared innocent by
the police, were also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial
along with the other accused.
10. Thereafter, challan was presented and, after the commitment
of proceedings, the charge under Sections 307, 342, 323, 148 and 149 IPC
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused, to
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -7-
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr.
Dinesh Sharma as PW-1, Dr. Davinder Kumar Bhukal as PW-2, Dev
Chand, complainant, as PW-3, Paramjit Singh, injured, as PW-4, Gokal
Chand, injured, as PW-5, Gurnam Singh, photographer, as PW-6, Mohan
Lal, Motor Tax Clerk, as PW-7, Dr. I.M. Chalana as PW-8, Raj Kumar,
draftsman, as PW-9, Constable Jit Singh as PW-10, Baljit Kaur, Junior
Assistant, as PW-11, and S.I. Jagroop Singh as PW-12. The prosecution
thereafter closed its evidence.
12. Thereafter, statements of all the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr .P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution allegations and
alleged false implication. However, the accused did not lead any evidence
in their defence.
13. After hearing learned APP for the State as well as learned
defence counsel, learned trial Court found that the prosecution had been
able to bring home the guilt of accused Anand Kumar, Shagan Lal alias
Kinku and Vinay Kumar beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. As
regards accused Jagsir Singh and Dilbagh Singh, learned trial Court
observed that they were not named in the FIR and that the complainant had
neither stated their presence at the spot nor attributed any overt act or
specific role to them, and accordingly, acquitted them. Similarly, accused
Vijay Kumar alias Billu, Bhagwan Dass alias Bhani Ram and Sanjiv
Kumar were also acquitted. Though their presence was stated at the spot,
Bhagwan Dass alias Bhani Ram and Sanjiv Kumar were alleged to be
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -8-
empty-handed, Bhani Ram being merely the driver of the jeep, whereas no
recovery of the alleged revolver from Vijay Kumar was effected or proved
and no specific overt act was attributed to him. Learned trial Court,
therefore, held that the prosecution had failed to establish any pre-concert
amongst them or their common intention with the principal accused. On the
other hand, the roles attributed to Anand Kumar, Shagan Lal alias Kinku
and Vinay Kumar in the firing and causing injuries were found to be duly
established, and they were accordingly convicted under Sections 307/34
and 323 IPC, while Anand Kumar was additionally convicted under
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
14. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the appellants, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this
judgment, have preferred the present appeal. A criminal revision has also
been filed by the victim Gokal Chand seeking enhancement of the
sentence. The said appeal and criminal revision are being taken up together
for consideration.
15. Thereafter, notice of the appeal was issued to the State,
whereas notice of the criminal revision was issued to the
respondents/accused. The State appeared in the appeal and contested the
same. Similarly, the respondents/accused appeared in the criminal revision
and contested the same.
16. While assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel
for the appellants has argued that the prosecution case is shrouded in
serious doubts and learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the material
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -9-
discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution evidence. It has been
contended that there is an unexplained delay of about eight hours in the
registration of the FIR, inasmuch as the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place at about 5:30 p.m. on 25.11.2004, whereas the FIR was registered at
2:40 a.m. on 26.11.2004, and the police reached the injured at Civil
Hospital, Fazilka only at about 12/1 a.m., after they had first been taken to
their village and thereafter, to Fazilka in a private vehicle. It is further
argued that the best available evidence has been withheld by the
prosecution, particularly that of Vijay Kumar, owner of Kumar Filling
Station, who had reached the spot and had taken the injured to the hospital,
but was given up by the prosecution, though his testimony was material for
unfolding the true sequence of events.
17. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injuries
suffered by the injured were declared simple in nature and, therefore, the
invocation of Section 307 IPC is wholly unwarranted. It has also been
argued that no specific role or individual injury has been attributed to
appellants Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal alias Kinku by the three injured
eyewitnesses, namely PW-3 Dev Chand, PW-4 Paramjit Singh and PW-5
Gokal Chand. According to learned counsel, apart from the bare assertion
that they were armed with a dang , no witness has stated that either of these
appellants inflicted any particular blow or caused any particular injury. It is,
thus, contended that the conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC cannot
be sustained merely on the basis of their alleged presence with weapons,
particularly when five other accused, who had allegedly been assigned a
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -10-
similar role, were acquitted by the learned trial Court.
18. It has further been argued that appellants Anand Kumar and
Shagan Lal alias Kinku were found innocent by the investigating agency
and were placed in column No.2 of the final report, and they were
subsequently summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated
10.03.2005. Learned counsel has also challenged the recovery of cartridge
remains, i.e gatta and wad, from the jeep of the complainant party as an
instance of padding, submitting that there is no evidence of firing from a
very close range and there was no blackening or tattooing on the injuries
allegedly suffered by Paramjit Singh. It has been contended that the
prosecution version regarding two shots having been fired by Anand
Kumar is also an improvement, inasmuch as the FIR initially described him
as being armed with a small 12-bore gun, whereas the subsequent version
sought to attribute a double-barrel gun to him.
19. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no
allegation of reloading of the firearm, which also casts doubt on the
prosecution version regarding the firing of two shots. The entire version
regarding pellet injuries allegedly suffered by Paramjit Singh has also been
assailed on the ground that no pellet was recovered from his injuries, the
pellets were not examined by any expert, and even the number of injuries
allegedly caused by the pellets is neither mentioned in the MLR nor stated
by any witness.
20. It has further been argued that appellants Vinay Kumar and
Shagan Lal alias Kinku have been falsely implicated on account of the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -11-
previous inimical relations arising out of the liquor vend business. Insofar
as Vinay Kumar is concerned, it has been submitted that he was an
employee of Sanjiv Kumar, whereas Shagan Lal alias Kinku and Anand
Kumar were partners in Shiv Kumar Enterprises dealing in liquor, and a
dispute had arisen regarding the liquor vend being run by Gokal Chand and
others on commission basis. According to learned counsel, the security
amount deposited by Gokal Chand and others had been forfeited after the
commission agency was cancelled, and the present case was subsequently
engineered to exert pressure upon them for recovery of the said security
amount.
21. Learned counsel has also pointed out that, according to PW-4
Paramjit Singh and PW-5 Gokal Chand, co-accused Jagsir Singh had also
allegedly fired a shot from a .12-bore gun, and the said gun was in fact
recovered from him, yet Jagsir Singh was acquitted by learned trial Court.
On the other hand, no firearm was recovered from appellant Anand Kumar,
who has nevertheless been convicted. It is, therefore, submitted that learned
trial Court has adopted a selective approach in appreciating the prosecution
evidence.
22. Lastly, learned counsel has challenged the identification of
appellant Shagan Lal alias Kinku, submitting that no Test Identification
Parade was conducted qua him despite the prosecution’s own showing that
he was not personally known to the complainant party and there was no
independent motive attributed to him. On the strength of the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -12-
prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and that they are
entitled to acquittal.
23. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the
revisionist/petitioner on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has
supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
learned Trial Court. It has been argued that the prosecution case is duly
supported by the ocular testimony of PW-3 Dev Chand, PW-4 Paramjit
Singh and PW-5 Gokal Chand, whose presence at the spot is natural and
whose testimony finds substantial corroboration from the medical
evidence. So far as the role of appellant Vinay Kumar is concerned, learned
State counsel has submitted that he was admittedly a member of the group
which intercepted the jeep of the complainant party and, as specifically
stated by the prosecution witnesses, he was armed with a dang . The said
dang was recovered at his instance during investigation and was taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.P48. The weapon so recovered was
produced before the Court and exhibited as MO-6. It is, therefore,
submitted that the presence and participation of Vinay Kumar cannot be
brushed aside merely because no particular blow has been attributed to him
individually.
24. It has further been argued that the medical evidence lends
support to the version of the prosecution regarding the use of blunt
weapons. PW-2 Dr. Devinder Kumar Bhukal has explained the injuries
suffered by Dev Chand and Gokal Chand, which were declared simple in
nature and caused by a blunt weapon. Dev Chand had suffered as many as
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -13-
five injuries, whereas Gokal Chand had suffered three injuries. According
to learned State counsel, the nature of these injuries corresponds with the
weapons attributed to Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal. Although no dang was
recovered from Shagan Lal, there is a specific and consistent assertion by
the prosecution witnesses that Shagan Lal was also armed with a dang and
was a member of the group which intercepted the complainant party. It is
thus contended that the mere absence of recovery of the weapon from
Shagan Lal cannot, by itself, discredit the consistent ocular account
regarding his presence and participation.
25. As regards appellant Anand Kumar, learned State counsel has
submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against him. He
was armed with a firearm and fired two shots at the complainant party. The
first shot hit Paramjit Singh on the neck and the back side of his head,
whereas the second shot struck the rear portion of the jeep. The firearm
injury suffered by Paramjit Singh stands duly explained by the medical
evidence. It is, therefore, argued that the role attributed to Anand Kumar is
specific and distinct from that attributed to the other appellants, and the fact
that the weapon could not ultimately be recovered from Anand Kumar
would not, in the presence of reliable ocular and medical evidence,
demolish the prosecution case. Learned State counsel has further submitted
that the injuries suffered by Paramjit Singh and Gokal Chand, though
simple in nature, stand duly proved by the medical evidence and their
presence and injuries furnish independent corroboration to the occurrence
narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -14-
26. Learned State counsel has also contended that the delay in
registration of the FIR, as highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants,
is adequately explained by the circumstances in which the injured were
first taken to their village and thereafter, to the hospital, and by the fact that
the police reached the hospital after receiving information regarding their
admission. The non-examination of Vijay Kumar, owner of Kumar Filling
Station, according to learned State counsel, is also not sufficient to discard
the otherwise trustworthy testimony of the injured eye-witnesses,
particularly when Vijay Kumar was only a witness to the subsequent events
and not an eye-witness to the entire occurrence. It has further been
submitted that minor discrepancies regarding the nature of the firearm, the
number of shots, the pellets or cartridge recovered from the jeep, or other
peripheral aspects do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
27. Lastly, learned State counsel has argued that the defence has
failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the presence of the
appellants at the spot or for the injuries suffered by the injured witnesses.
The acquittal of some of the co-accused, it is submitted, was based upon
the appreciation of the evidence against those accused individually and
does not, by itself, entitle the present appellants to acquittal when there is
specific ocular and medical evidence against them. It is, accordingly,
submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and no ground is made out for interference with the conviction and
sentence of the appellants.
28. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist/petitioner, on the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -15-
other hand, has submitted that the sentence awarded by learned Trial Court
is inadequate and is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence
proved against the accused. It has been argued that the occurrence involved
an armed attack in which Anand Kumar fired two shots from a firearm at
the complainant party, one of which struck Paramjit Singh on the neck and
the back side of his head, while the other hit the rear portion of the jeep.
29. Learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner has, therefore,
prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 307 IPC be
enhanced, keeping in view the nature of the occurrence, the weapons used
and the manner in which the offence was committed.
30. I have considered the respective contentions of learned
counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel, assisted by learned
counsel for the petitioner/revisionist, and have carefully gone through the
evidence available on record.
31. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellants is with
regard to the delay in registration of the FIR. It is submitted that the
occurrence took place at about 5:30 p.m. on 25.11.2004, whereas the FIR
was registered at 2:40 a.m. on 26.11.2004 and, therefore, there was an
unexplained delay of about eight hours. This contention, however, does not
merit acceptance. The evidence on record shows that after the occurrence,
the injured persons were first taken to their village and thereafter, to Civil
Hospital, Fazilka in a private vehicle. Dev Chand had also informed
Charanjit Singh, brother of injured Paramjit Singh, regarding the
occurrence. The police party, thereafter, reached the hospital and the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -16-
injured Paramjit Singh and Gokal Chand were initially declared unfit to
make statements, whereas Dev Chand was declared fit and his statement
was recorded. Thus, the time consumed after the occurrence stands
satisfactorily explained by the movement of the injured persons from the
place of occurrence to their village and thereafter to the hospital, their
medical examination and the ascertainment of their fitness to make
statements. The delay, in the facts of the present case, is neither inordinate
nor such as would create any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution
version. Significantly, there is no material on record to suggest that the
intervening period was utilised for deliberations, consultations or
fabrication of a false version. The FIR, therefore, cannot be discarded
merely on account of the time taken in the aforesaid circumstances.
32. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that, since
none of the injuries suffered by the injured had been declared dangerous to
life, the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be attracted, is also
without merit. The applicability of Section 307 IPC does not depend solely
upon the nature or severity of the injury actually caused. It is the intention
or knowledge with which the act was committed, coupled with the act done
in furtherance thereof, which is material. In the present case, the ocular
testimony of the injured witnesses consistently establishes that appellant
Anand Kumar fired shots from a firearm towards the occupants of the jeep
with the intention of causing their death. The medical evidence further
corroborates the ocular account, inasmuch as the injury suffered by
Paramjit Singh was specifically opined to be a firearm injury. The fact that
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -17-
the injury ultimately did not prove fatal or was not declared dangerous to
life cannot, by itself, efface the intention with which the firearm was used.
Thus, merely because the injuries were not declared dangerous to life, the
offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be ruled out. The nature of the
weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the part of the body towards
which the shot was fired and the surrounding circumstances clearly
establish the requisite intention and knowledge. Accordingly, the
conviction under Section 307 IPC is not rendered unsustainable merely on
account of the injuries not having been declared dangerous to life.
33. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants
that the prosecution story regarding the firearm injury allegedly suffered by
Paramjit Singh is doubtful, particularly because no pellet was recovered
from his person and no pellet was examined by an expert, also cannot be
accepted. PW-2 Dr. Davinder Kumar Bhukal, who medico-legally
examined Paramjit Singh, found multiple lacerated punctured wounds with
inverted margins extending over the right side of the neck and occipital part
of the head. The said injury was kept for X-ray and surgical opinion and,
on receipt of the X-ray report, the doctor specifically declared the injury to
be a firearm injury. The medical opinion, therefore, is not based merely
upon the history supplied by the injured; rather, the nature of the injury was
clinically examined and, after the radiological report, the doctor
specifically opined that it was a firearm injury. The mere fact that no pellet
was recovered from the body cannot override such specific medical
opinion. The absence of recovery of a pellet is, by itself, not sufficient to
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -18-
discard the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injury. Reliance
has been placed upon Om Pal and others vs. State of U.P. (now State of
Uttarakhand), 2025 INSC 1262 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as under:-
49. Another contention raised by the appellants was that the
weapons used during the incident were never recovered from
the site. However, this Court has many a times reiterated that
non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the
case of the prosecution if there is consistent medical and
ocular evidence. This Court in the case State of Rajasthan v.
Arjun Singh & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 held as under:
"18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State that mere
non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the
case of the prosecution where clinching and direct
evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence
regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes,
etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence
had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have already
pointed out that the gunshot injuries tallied with
medical evidence. It is also seen that Raghuraj Singh
and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, received 8 and 7
gunshot wounds respectively while Raj Singh (PW 2)
also received 8 gunshots scattered in front of left thigh.
All these injuries have been noted by the doctor (PW 1)
in his reports, Exts. P-1 to P-4."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. Also in Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3
SCC 317 , this Court held that where in light of unimpeachable
oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -19-
recovery of murder weapon does not materially affect the case
of the prosecution. Any omission on the part of the
investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution's case.
Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such
omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would
shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law
enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.”
34. The location and nature of the injury further lend assurance to
the prosecution version. The injury was caused on the neck and the
occipital region, i.e the back side of the head, which is undoubtedly a vital
part of the human body. The ocular account attributes two shots to Anand
Kumar; the first shot struck Paramjit Singh on the neck and the back side of
his head, whereas the second shot struck the rear portion of the jeep. The
medical evidence, thus, substantially corroborates the ocular account
regarding the firing. There is also no plausible reason suggested on record
for such an injury to have been self-inflicted. The suggestion that the
firearm injury should be disbelieved merely because the pellet was not
recovered is, therefore, without substance. The positive medical opinion of
PW-2 that the injury was a firearm injury, read with the ocular account,
cannot be brushed aside on the basis of a mere non-recovery.
35. The contention that similarly placed co-accused have been
acquitted and, therefore, the present appellants also deserve acquittal, is
equally devoid of merit. The appellants cannot claim parity with those
accused who were either found innocent during investigation or whose
involvement was not established by the evidence led during trial. So far as
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -20-
Shagan Lal is concerned, the injured witnesses have specifically named
him as one of the persons accompanying the assailants and have attributed
to him the possession of a dang . The fact that no dang was ultimately
recovered from Shagan Lal may have a bearing upon the corroborative
aspect of the prosecution case, but it does not efface the direct ocular
evidence against him. It is also material that accused Vinay Kumar was
specifically attributed the possession of a dang and the said dang was
produced by him during investigation and was taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.P48; the weapon was exhibited as MO6. The
investigating officer has specifically deposed regarding this recovery. For
this, reliance has been placed upon Uma Shankar Gautam vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2014 INSC 847 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
12. We do not find any substance in the submission of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that since
accused Nos. 5 and 6 have been acquitted; on the ground
parity the appellant herein also deserves to be acquitted. It is
always open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had
been acquitted from those who had been convicted. The power
of the courts to distinguish the cases of one or more of the
accused from the other(s) is far too well recognised to need
reiteration. Still, we may notice the principle as stated in
Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381,
wherein this Court observed as follows :
"........Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to
be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of
an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -21-
other co-accused persons, his conviction can be
maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the
grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from
the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an
accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been
found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused
persons."
36. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that no
specific injury has been attributed to Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal and that
the injured witnesses have merely stated in general terms that the accused
gave them fist and dang blows. This argument also does not persuade this
Court. The evidence has to be appreciated in its entirety and in the factual
setting in which the occurrence took place. The prosecution version is that
the assailants came as a group, intercepted the jeep of the complainant
party and thereafter, assaulted the occupants. The evidence specifically
attributes dangs to Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal, whereas the other
accused were not stated to be armed with dangs . Consequently, even if the
injured witnesses did not assign each individual blunt injury with
mathematical precision to one particular accused, their consistent assertion
that Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal were armed with dangs and participated
in the assault is of considerable significance. Their respective roles cannot
be isolated from the entire occurrence merely because the witnesses did not
specify which particular blow landed on which particular part of the body.
37. The medical evidence lends material corroboration to this
aspect of the prosecution case as well. Gokal Chand was found to have
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -22-
sustained three injuries, all of which were ultimately declared simple and
attributable to a blunt weapon. Dev Chand was found to have sustained five
injuries, including swelling on the left side of the face near the outer aspect
of the left eye, reddish contusion on the back of the left hand, complaints of
pain on the left hand and right side of the chest, and an abrasion on the left
leg. Injuries Nos.1, 2 and 5 were opined to have been caused by a blunt
weapon and, after receipt of the X-ray report, all the injuries were declared
simple. Thus, the medical evidence establishes that the complainant party
did in fact suffer blunt-force injuries during the occurrence, which is
consistent with the prosecution allegation that Vinay Kumar and Shagan
Lal were armed with dangs and participated in the assault. The mere
absence of an individual attribution of each blow cannot, in the
circumstances, be treated as a material contradiction.
38. The contention that Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal were falsely
implicated on account of previous business rivalry also does not demolish
the prosecution case. The existence of a prior dispute between the parties
may furnish a motive for the occurrence, but it cannot by itself be made a
ground to reject otherwise consistent ocular evidence. Rather, the
prosecution version regarding the background dispute explains why the
accused persons confronted the complainant party. The presence of the
accused persons at the spot, their interception of the complainant’s jeep, the
firing attributed to Anand Kumar, the injuries suffered by Paramjit Singh,
Dev Chand and Gokal Chand, and the recovery of the dang from Vinay
Kumar constitute circumstances which have to be considered cumulatively.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -23-
39. The submission that the prosecution has improved its version
regarding the firearm allegedly used by Anand Kumar also does not create
a reasonable doubt. The essential feature of the prosecution case from the
inception is that Anand Kumar was armed with a small .12-bore gun and
fired at the complainant party. The subsequent description of the weapon
cannot be considered in isolation so as to discard the substantive evidence
regarding the firing. What remains consistent and materially corroborated
is that two shots were fired by Anand Kumar, one of which struck Paramjit
Singh on the vital region of his neck and the back side of his head, while
the other struck the rear portion of the jeep. The medical evidence
independently establishes that Paramjit Singh had suffered a firearm injury.
The fact that the precise weapon was not ultimately recovered from Anand
Kumar does not obliterate the direct ocular and medical evidence against
him.
40. The contention regarding the recovery of cartridge remains
and pellets from the jeep also does not advance the case of the appellants.
The investigating officer had taken into possession the broken glass pieces
of the jeep, the pellets and the empty .12-bore cartridge from the vehicle
during investigation. The existence or otherwise of such physical evidence
has to be appreciated along with the direct testimony of the injured
witnesses and the medical evidence. Even assuming that some individual
piece of corroborative evidence is not conclusive by itself, the Court is
required to examine whether the prosecution case as a whole inspires
confidence. In the present case, the ocular version regarding firing finds
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -24-
material corroboration from the firearm injury noticed by PW-2.
41. The argument that the appellants were merely present in a
large group and that their individual participation has not been established
also cannot be accepted. The evidence does not merely establish their
presence. Anand Kumar has been specifically attributed the firing of two
shots, one of which caused a firearm injury to Paramjit Singh. Vinay
Kumar and Shagan Lal have specifically been attributed the possession of
dangs and participation in the assault, and the occurrence resulted in
multiple blunt injuries upon Dev Chand and Gokal Chand. The recovery of
the dang from Vinay Kumar at his instance further lends corroboration to
his participation. The fact that the assailants had arrived together,
intercepted the complainant party and thereafter, acted in furtherance of the
same occurrence establishes the requisite meeting of minds and common
intention. Section 34 IPC does not require that each accused must
individually cause a particular injury; once the participation of an accused
in furtherance of the common intention is established, he is liable for the
acts done by the members of the group in furtherance of such common
intention.
42. It is also pertinent that the statements of the injured witnesses
cannot be discarded lightly. The evidence of an injured witness carries a
special weight, since his presence at the scene of occurrence is ordinarily
established by the very fact that he himself sustained injuries. In the present
case, their version regarding the occurrence is substantially corroborated by
the medical evidence. The evidence of PW-2 establishes the firearm nature
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -25-
of the injury suffered by Paramjit Singh, while the injuries suffered by Dev
Chand and Gokal Chand are consistent with assault by blunt weapons. The
prosecution case, therefore, does not rest upon a solitary circumstance but
upon a chain of ocular, medical and investigative evidence which is
mutually corroborative.
43. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence establishes that Anand
Kumar intentionally fired two shots at the complainant party, one of which
struck Paramjit Singh on a vital part of his body and was medically
declared to be a firearm injury; Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal were armed
with dangs and participated in the assault; Vinay Kumar produced a dang
which was taken into possession vide Ex.P48 and exhibited as MO6; and
that Dev Chand and Gokal Chand sustained multiple simple injuries
consistent with an assault by blunt weapons.
44. The acquittal of some of the co-accused, on the facts of the
present case, does not entitle these appellants to acquittal when the
evidence specifically connecting them with the occurrence is found
reliable. This Court, therefore, finds that the prosecution has successfully
established the participation of the appellants and their common intention
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction of Anand Kumar
under Section 307 IPC and of Vinay Kumar and Shagan Lal under Section
307 read with Section 34 IPC is found to be well-founded.
45. Regarding the allegations against Anand Kumar for the
offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, this Court finds that
the said conviction cannot be sustained. The prosecution case, as noticed
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -26-
hereinbefore, is that Anand Kumar was armed with a .12-bore gun and fired
two shots at the complainant party, one of which struck Paramjit Singh on
the neck and the back side of his head, whereas the other shot struck the
rear portion of the jeep. The ocular account regarding the firing finds
substantial corroboration from the medical evidence, as PW-2 Dr. Davinder
Kumar Bhukal, after medico-legal examination and receipt of the X-ray
report, specifically declared the injury suffered by Paramjit Singh to be a
firearm injury. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution has proved the use of a firearm by Anand Kumar for the
purpose of determining his culpability under Section 307 IPC. However,
the question whether such use also constitutes an offence under Section 27
of the Arms Act stands on a different footing.
46. Section 27 of the Arms Act, in its present form, does not
punish the mere use of a firearm for an unlawful purpose. Sub-section (1)
of Section 27 is attracted when a firearm or ammunition is used in
contravention of Section 5 of the Act, while sub-section (2) concerns the
use of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of
Section 7. The distinction assumes significance in the present case because
the prosecution has not established on record that the firearm allegedly
used by Anand Kumar was an unlicensed weapon, Anand Kumar had no
licence authorising its possession or use, or the firearm was otherwise a
prohibited arm attracting the provisions of Section 7 of the Arms Act. The
weapon allegedly used by Anand Kumar has also not been recovered
during the investigation. Consequently, there is no material on record from
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -27-
which this Court can conclude that the use of the said firearm was in
contravention of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act.
47. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra . The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of
Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24 , while examining an identical question,
categorically held that, after the amendment of Section 27 by the Arms
(Amendment) Act, 1988, the provision is confined to violation of the
conditions contained in Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act. The
Supreme Court specifically observed that the earlier concept of use of arms
for an “unlawful purpose” was no longer an independent ingredient of
Section 27 after the amendment. The Court consequently set aside the
conviction under Section 27 while maintaining the conviction under
Section 307 IPC.
48. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present
case, merely because Anand Kumar is proved to have fired from a firearm
and thereby caused a firearm injury to Paramjit Singh, it cannot follow that
he has committed an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
prosecution was required to go a step further and establish the statutory
ingredient, namely, that the firearm was used in contravention of Section 5
or Section 7 of the Act. No such evidence has been brought on record. The
non-recovery of the firearm further assumes significance in this context, as
there is no weapon before the Court whose nature, licence status or other
statutory characteristics could be examined. The evidence may be sufficient
to establish the factum of firing for the purpose of Section 307 IPC, but it is
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -28-
insufficient to establish the distinct statutory ingredients necessary for
sustaining a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Further, the
Hon’ble Patna High Court in Moti Lal Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar
and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2507332 , wherein it has been held as
under:-
“19. I am in agreement with the learned Advocate for the
petitioners as well as I must rely on the previous decisions of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which has been relied by
the learned Advocate for the petitioners to the effect that the
petitioners cannot be convicted and sentenced under section
27 of the Arms Act, in the absence of firearm having not been
recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons.
The question of examination of firearm by the expert does not
arise at all because the firearm could not be recovered by the
Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly and
wrongly held the petitioners guilty for committing offence
under section 27 of the Arms Act.”
49. Accordingly, while the evidence on record is sufficient to
sustain the conviction of Anand Kumar under Section 307 IPC, his
conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained. The
conviction of Anand Kumar under Section 27 of the Arms Act is, therefore,
set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. This finding, however, does
not in any manner affect the conviction recorded against him under Section
307 IPC, which has been independently established by the ocular and
medical evidence discussed hereinbefore.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -29-
50. Consequently, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court
finds no merit in the present criminal appeal insofar as the conviction of
appellants Anand Kumar, Shagan Lal @ Kinku and Vinay Kumar under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC is concerned.
The said convictions are, accordingly, upheld. However, the conviction of
appellant Anand Kumar under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be
sustained and is hereby set aside, and he is acquitted of the said charge. The
sentences awarded under Sections 307 and 307/34 and 323 IPC shall
remain unaltered and shall run concurrently, as directed by learned trial
Court. The period already undergone by the appellants shall be set off
against the substantive sentence in accordance with law.
51. As regards the criminal revision filed by the
petitioner/revisionist Gokal Chand seeking enhancement of sentence, this
Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the discretion exercised
by the learned trial Court in awarding the sentence. The sentence awarded
to the appellants, is therefore maintained.
52. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent, whereas the criminal revision petition seeking
enhancement of sentence is dismissed.
53. Accused-appellants, namely, Vinay Kumar, Anand Kumar and
Shagan Lal @ Kinku are on bail. A copy of the judgment be sent to
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, to initiate process of re-arrest of the
aforesaid appellants, so as to serve the remaining part of the sentence.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA-S No.602-SB of 2008 &
CRR No.1320 of 2008 -30-
54. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
11.09.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.09.14 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD