Daljit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRA-AD-142-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
CRA-AD-142-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on: 08.10.2026
Pronounced on: 05.11.2026
Uploaded on: 12.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the
judgement is pronounced or the full
judgement is pronounced.
Operative Part/Full judgement
Daljit Kaur ...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK
Present :- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
*
RAVINDER MALIK , J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the judgement of acquittal dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar arising out of FIR No.22 dated 11.02.2012,
registered under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 295, 148, 149 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar
whereby the accused-respondents No.2 to 19 were acquitted of the charges
framed against them.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -2-
on 11.02.2012, the complainant moved a complaint stating therein that she
belongs to Balmiki Community (Scheduled Caste). Their community is in
possession of 10 acres of land at Jamsher Road where a temple of Bhagwan
Shri Balmiki and a Dharamshala have been constructed. Nishan Sahib is also
installed there. One Kulwinder Singh, who is a famous property dealer,
wanted to grab the said land for the last many months and was threatening us
for the said purpose. At about 1 p.m. Tarsem Lal s/o Inder Singh, Rajinder
Kaur wife of Ramesh Lal, Ram Lubhaya son of Dalip Ram, Bachan Nath
son of Milkhi Ram, Ranjit Kaur wife of Dalvir Chand, Samuel Masih son of
Tarsem Lal, belonging to Balmiki community, residents of Jalandhar were
present and said property dealer Kulwinder Singh armed with datar, Piara
Singh s/o Bachint Singh, armed with datar, Chuhar Singh son of Preetam
Singh (empty handed), Harnek Singh son of Surinder Singh armed with
datar, Paramjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh armed with kirpan, Sarpanch
Dharampal @ Sabi armed with kirpan, Mohinder Pal @ Jhanda son of
Munshi Ram armed with kirpan, Sunny and Vicky sons of Alias Masih
armed with kirpans, Alias Masih son of not known armed with datar, Gabbar
son of Mohinder Ram armed with kirpan, Bunty son of Jagdish Ram armed
with kirpan, Bhinda son of Mela Ram, residents of Partpura, District
Jalandhar all conspired to take over the land. Baldev Singh son of Karnail
Singh, Tony son of Baldev Singh, Sunny son of Baldev Singh, Anu son of
Baldev Singh came there. Piara Singh raised lalkara- “ehna kute chudea ne
sardara nal matha laya hai, ehnu sabak sikha deo and Balmiki mandir
ukhad deo” while other accused came forward to uproot the Nishan Sahib
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -3-
and destroy the Mandir. When they were restrained, the accused persons
attacked the persons present there with their respective weapons with an
intention to kill them. The accused-respondents gave grievous injuries to
Tarsem Lal, Rajinder Kaur, Ram Lubhaya, Bachan Lal, Ranjit Kaur and
Samuel Masih. Thereafter injureds were sent to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar.
All the above-mentioned assailants demolished the said Mandir and as such,
they have hurt the sentiments of Balmiki Community. Later on, the
assailants fled away with their respective weapons on seeing the people
coming to help the persons present there.
3. On the basis of statement of complainant, initial investigation
was conducted by Inspector/SHO after registration of a case against the
accused persons. During investigation, Investigating Officer visited the place
of occurrence, prepared rough site plan and took into possession burnt
motorcycle make Splendor bearing registration No.PB-08-BP-0137 and one
burnt Activa Scooty. Thereafter, he arrested accused Dharam Pal and
Rajinder Pal on 11.02.2012. On recording supplementary statement of
complainant Daljit Kaur, accused Sarabjit Singh @ Gabbar was arrested on
12.02.2012.
4. On 19.02.2012, further investigation was conducted by
Sh. Bhagwant Singh, PPS, ACP, Control Room, Jalandhar, who during
investigation arrested Sarwan Singh @ Mani s/o Joginder Singh, Manjit
Singh @ Mani s/o Surinder Singh, Charanjit Singh @ Koka s/o Sukhdev
Singh. Sarabjit Singh @ Saabi s/o Balwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh s/o
Harbans Singh were also arrested on 19.02.2012 while travelling in a Maruti
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -4-
car bearing registration No.PB-10-AR-8891 from whom two datars and two
baseball were recovered. On 23.05.2012, accused Baldev Singh s/o Karnail
Singh, Avtar Singh @ Tony s/o Baldev Singh, Handeep Singh @ Sunny s/o
Baldev Singh, Gursharan singh @ Shami s/o Baldev Singh, Alias Masih s/o
Darshan Masih, Mohinder Singh @ Ginda s/o Munshi Ram, Lovedeep @
Vicky s/o Mohinder Singh and Navdeep @ Sunny s/o Mohinder Singh were
arrested and interrogated by Jasbir Singh Rai, ACP Headquarters. Thereafter,
they were released on bail. On 03.07.2012, accused Balbir Singh @ Pinda
s/o Paramjit Singh @ Mela Ram, Jaspal @ Bunti s/o Jagdish Kumar and
Harnek Singh s/o Surinder Singh were arrested and interrogated by Jasbir
Singh Rai, ACP Headquarters. Thereafter they were also released on bail.
However, during investigation, accused Manjinder Singh s/o Surinder Singh,
Piara Singh s/o Bachint Singh, Jasbir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, Raghbir
Singh @ Chuhar Singh s/o Preetam Singh were found to be innocent. After
completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the
Court.
5. The copies of the final report and the documents annexed with
it were supplied to the accused free of cost, as per the provisions under
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. After moving an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, accused
Kulwinder Singh, Piara Singh s/o Bachitter Singh, Manna s/o Surinder
Singh, Jassa s/o Gurdev Singh, Chuhar Singh s/o Pritam Singh were ordered
to be summoned.
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -5-
7. Finding a prima facie case, the accused-respondents No.2 to 19
were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections
307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 295, 148, 149 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) of
SC/ST Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 17
witnesses including SI (Retd.) Surinder Singh as PW3, HC Baljinder Kumar
as PW4, complainant Daljit Kaur as PW5, Piara Singh as PW7, Yusuf as
PW6, Ranjit Kaur as PW8, Dr. Bhupinder Kaur, Senior Medical Officer as
PW9, Dr. Satwinder Singh as PW10, Inspector (Retd.) Gurbhinder Singh as
PW11, Dr. Bhupinder Randhawa as PW15, Dr. Raman Gupta as PW16 and
Dr. Jasmeet Wali as PW17. In the documentary evidence, the prosecution
placed reliance upon various documents including, complaint Ex.PA and
medical evidence Ex.PW9/A to PW9/AM, FIR Ex.P11/C and thereafter
closed the evidence.
9. Smt. Daljit Kaur w/o Kashmir Lal (complainant) while
appearing as PW-5 deposed that she belongs to the Balmiki Community. She
deposed that there is 10 acres of land belonging to the Waqf Board in their
village, which is under the possession of the Balmiki community. On the
aforesaid 10 acres of land, there is one Balmiki temple, a Dharamshala, and
an affixed Nishan Sahib where the members of her community perform
religious prayers. She further deposed that o n 11.02.2012 at about 1:00 p.m.,
she along with Ranjit Kaur, Ram Lubhaya, Bachan Nath, Tarsem Lal,
Samuel Masih and other persons of their community were present on the
said land. At that time, the accused persons namely Baldev, Dharmpal,
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -6-
Sarbjit @ Gabbar, Tony, Honey, Shammi, Manna, Churr Singh Jass, Piara
Singh, Kulwinder Singh, who is a property dealer, Alias Masih, Gurmeet,
Vicky, Sunny, Mohinder @ Harnek Singh @ Neki, and one person s/o
Mohinder Singh, were present at the spot. The accused named Paramjit @
Pamma, along with the other accused armed with datars and kirpans came at
the spot. On 11.02.2012, at about 1:00/1:30 p.m., the afore-mentioned
accused along with accused Pinda s/o Mela Ram armed with kirpans and
datars came to the spot. Then, accused Piara Singh raised a lalkara.
Thereafter, the accused proceeded to uproot the Nishan Sahib tied at the
spot. She also deposed that when she, along with Ram Lubhaya, Tarsem Lal,
Bachan Nath, Ranjit Kaur, Rajinder Kaur, and Samuel Masih, tried to
restrain them, the accused persons, with an intention to kill them, inflicted
injuries upon Ram Lubhaya, Tarsem Lal, Bachan Nath, Ranjit Kaur,
Rajinder Kaur, and Samuel Masih with their lethal weapons. She witnessed
the entire incident as she herself did not suffer any injuries. While uprooting
the Nishan Sahib, the accused also butchered live hens at the spot. Accused
Kulwinder Singh, who is a property dealer and belongs to the land mafia,
had been trying to take forcible possession of the afore-said land for a long
time and had been threatening to dispossess them. The accused committed
all these acts with the intention to degrade her and the other members of
their community, who were present at the spot. Due to these actions of the
accused, the religious sentiments of the Balmiki Community were deeply
hurt. After arranging a conveyance, the injured persons were subsequently
taken to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The complainant identified all the
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -7-
accused.
10. Ranjit Kaur wife of Dalvir while appearing as PW8 deposed
that she is permanent resident of Village Partapura and belongs to Balmiki
community. She stated that on 11.02.2012, at about 1:00/1:30 p.m., she,
along with 4-5 co-villagers, who also belong to the Balmiki community,
were present on the 10 acres of land, which is in the ownership of the Waqf
Board and under their possession since the time of their forefathers. She
deposed that they have constructed a dharmshala of Bhagwan Shri Balmiki
and have also installed a Nishan Sahib on the aforesaid land. She further
deposed that at the time of incident, the accused Kulwinder Singh, who is
belonging to the land mafia, arrived at the spot along with his associates,
who were trying to grab their land. Kulwinder Singh was accompanied by
Chuhar Singh, Manna, Gurdev, Paramjit Singh, Jassa, Manmit @ Mani,
Mani, Gurmit, Harnek Singh, Mohinder Pal @ Binda, Sunny, Vicky, Baldev,
Sarabjit, Shami, Honey, Avtar Singh, Sarpanch Dharam Pal, Gabbar, Aliaz
Masih, Gora, Neki, Binda, Tony, Bunty, and Paramjit alias Pamma. All these
persons forcibly entered upon their land. The accused Piara Singh raised a
lalkara and thereafter, other persons demolished their temple and were
proceeding to uproot the Nishan Sahib. When the complainant and her
companions confronted them, the aforesaid persons attacked them with their
respective weapons i.e. datars and kirpans . First of all, the accused Piara
Singh attacked her with a datar on the left side of her face, which hit her
jaw, left eye, as well as her nose. These persons also caused injuries to Rani,
Lubhaya, Bachan Nath, and Tarsem with their weapons. Furthermore, the
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -8-
accused persons butchered live hens at the spot where the temple was
situated with the intention to hurt their religious sentiments. The accused
Piara Singh raised the lalkara to degrade their community and to take
possession of the above-said land. All of this was done at the behest of the
accused Kulwinder Singh, the property dealer. They raised a clamour, which
attracted other persons of the village to the spot, and upon seeing them, the
accused fled away from the spot along with their weapons.
11. Dr. Bhupinder Kaur, Senior Medical Officer while appearing as
PW-9 in her examination-in-chief deposed that on 11.02.2012, she was
posted as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and at about 3.55 pm,
she medico-legally examined Tarsem Lal s/o Inder Singh and found
following injuries on his person: -
1. Incised wound 10 cm in length over right cheek. Bone deep.
Cut extending up to nose. I advised x-ray, surgical and E.N.T.
Opinion.
2. Incised wound 1 cm in length over lateral angle of left eye.
3. Incised wound 1 cm below left ear, two cm in length, skin
deep.
4. Incised wound 2.5 cm in length over left deltoid region skin
deep.
5. Incised wound 1.5 cm in length over right deltoid region.
6. Incised wound very superficial over dorsum of left hand. 2.5
cm in length skin deep, no restriction of mobility.
Injury No.1 was kept under x-ray, surgical and and E.N.T.
Opinion. Injuries no.2 to 6 were declared simple in nature. PW9 further
deposed that as per report of Dr. Satwinder Singh, Radiologist, there was no
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -9-
fracture. As per report of Dr. Raman Gupta, ENT, there was no crepitus on
nose or cheek. She also deposed that as per report of Dr. Bhupinder Pal
Singh Randhawa, Surgeon, there was small fracture on the right maxilla and
alveolar process on C.T. scan face.
12. On the same day, at about 4.25 p.m., she medico legally
examined Rajinder Kaur wife of Ramesh Lal and found the following
injuries on her persons:-
1. Lacerated wound measuring 2 cm in length over right
temporal region and advised x-ray and surgical opinion.
2. Patient complained of pain in left arm and advised x-ray.
3. Complaint of pain in right thigh.
PW-9 deposed that she did not receive any x-ray report or
surgical opinion of injury No.1 and 2 while Injury No.3 was simple in
nature.
13. Dr. Bhupinder Kaur further deposed that on the same day, at
4.45 p.m. she medico legally examined Ranjit Kaur wife of Dalbir Thapar,
and observed that patient was conscious, well oriented to time and place.
Her blood pressure and pulse was within normal limits. She noted the
following injuries on her :-
Incised wound 6 cm in length extending from medial angle of
left eyebrow to left side of nose. Bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present.
Bleeding from nose. I advised x-ray, E.N.T. and Surgical Opinion.
Injury was kept under X-ray, surgical and ENT opinion. She
deposed that as per opinion given by Dr. Satwinder Singh Radiologist, there
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -10-
was fracture of nasal bone and therefore, injury was declared as grievous in
nature.
14. PW-9 deposed that she also medico legally examined Yusuf son
of Gurmail Singh and observed that patient was conscious, well oriented to
time and place. His blood pressure and pulse was within normal limits. She
noted bruise and slight swelling over medial aspect of right thigh. The
injury was simple in nature.
15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to them in
their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to which they denied all
the allegations. Accused Dharam Pal, Rajinder Pal, Manmeet Singh,
Gurmeet Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Baldev Singh, Avtar Singh @ Tony,
Handeep Singh @ Honey, Gursharan Singh, Alias Masih, Lovedeep @
Vicky, Navdeep @ Sunny, Jaspal @ Bunty, Balbir Singh @ Binda and
Harnek Singh @ Neki pleaded their innocence and submitted their false
implication in the present case. They further submitted that no such
occurrence took place and they also belong to Scheduled Caste community.
Accused Kulwinder Singh submitted that he was not present at the spot and
the land in dispute has been given by the Waqf Board in favour of his firm
by allotment. He further submitted that complainant party wanted to take the
possession of the property unlawfully and therefore, got registered a false
case against him.
16. In defence, accused examined Jasvir Singh (Retd.) Assistant
Police Commissioner Traffic as DW-1, Balkar Singh (Retd.) DSP, Punjab
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -11-
Police as DW-2, Pankaj, Patwari Halqa as DW-3 and Jameel Ahmed, Estate
Officer, Punjab Waqf Board as DW-4 and thereafter closed their defence
evidence.
17. Jasvir Singh Rai, Retired Assistant, Police Commissioner
Traffic, Jalandhar, who while appearing as DW1 in his examination-in-chief
deposed that on 12.02.2012, he was posted as Assistant Police
Commissioner (Head Quarter and Traffic), Jalandhar. An application was
received by him for enquiry/ investigation of the case, bearing FIR no. 22
dated 21.02.2012, P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar, under Sections 307, 323, 326, 148,
149 IPC and Section 3/4 SC/ST Act. He further deposed that after thorough
investigation of the matter and also visiting the spot and recording the
statements of concerned persons, he gave his enquiry report dated
02.08.2012, wherein he found Manjinder Singh s/o Surinder Singh, Piara
Singh s/o Bachint Singh, Jasvir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh and Raghbir Singh
@ Chuhar Singh s/o Pritam Singh to be innocent, as it was found that they
had come from abroad to attend the marriage of their nephew Sandeep Singh
of village Uggi and returned back after attending the marriage on 12.02.2012
and that they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence.
18. Balkar Singh, retired DSP, Punjab Police Jalandhar while
appearing as DW2 deposed that in this case, he had conducted investigation,
while having been posted as ACP, Jalandhar Cantt. On the basis of the said
investigation, he had prepared his report and found that Kulwinder Singh
(accused) was not present at the spot when the occurrence had taken place
and declared him as innocent. His, detailed report along with entire file was
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -12-
forwarded to Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar and after verifying the said
report, same was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar and
ultimately, a DDR was entered in the said case whereby said Kulwinder
Singh was found to be innocent. He was kept in column no.2.
19. Pankaj, Patwari Halqa Village Partapura, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar
while appearing as DW-3 deposed that he has brought the summoned record
i.e. jamabandis of the property in dispute, from the year 1980-81 till 2010-
2011. The last jamabandi of the year 2010-2011, is till the year 2015- 2016.
He further deposed that he has also brought the khasra girdawari from the
year 2011 to 2016. The certified copies of the jamabandis and issued under
his signatures are Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/6. The Khasra Girdwari is
ExDW3/7. As per the record, the property was owned by Punjab Waqf
Board and was always in their possession. There was no Mandir in existence
in the said property, at any stage, as per the record.
20. Jameel Ahmed, Estate Officer, Punjab Waqf Board, Jalandhar
while appearing as DW-4 deposed that the property in dispute in the present
case was notified as a Waqf Property and brought the original notification
Ex.DW4/1. He further deposed that he has also brought the original lease
order issued in favour of firm M/s Prestige Farms through it’s partner on
23.12.2011 for a period of 33 months w.e.f. 01.12.2011 @ Rs.36,000/- per
month. The possession was delivered to the said firm, at the spot on the day,
when the lease was to start. The said firm was a partnership concern and the
name of the partners were Kulwinder Singh s/o Darshan Singh, Raminder
Kaur w/o Kulwinder Singh, Dr. Narotam Singh, Dr. Gagandeep Kaur,
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -13-
Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh. DW4 also deposed that property in
dispute was an agricultural land and no mandir was ever constructed, at any
stage, in this property.
21. After going through the material available on record, arguments
advanced by the prosecution as well as defence, learned trial court acquitted
respondents No.2 to 19 from the charges framed against them vide
impugned judgement of acquittal dated 26.09.2022. Hence, the present
appeal.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of
acquittal has been erroneously passed by the learned trial court as the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that
Daljit Kaur PW5 being the eye witness has duly proved her version and her
testimony is sufficient on its own to prove culpability of the respondents
accused.
23. Learned counsel further submits that the version of the
prosecution is further affirmed by medical evidence proved on record by the
Doctors, who examined the injuries and opined them as being grievous in
nature.
24. Learned counsel further contends that t he prosecution
established the ownership and possession over the property in dispute and
that respondents No.2 to 19 tried to take forcible possession of it. The
evidence clearly establishes that respondents No. 2 to 19 committed offences
punishable under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 295, 148 and 149 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution fully proved its
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -14-
version by examining all the material witnesses and established that all the
accused were members of an unlawful assembly and attacked and injured
the victims, including the appellant
25. Learned State counsel, however, on the other hand, submits that
she is unable to advance any arguments to show, even prima facie that the
judgment under challenge is improper, based upon mis-appreciation of
evidence or suffers from illegality, particularly when the State being the
prosecuting agency itself, chose not to file an appeal against the judgement.
26. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the
available record with their able assistance.
27. At the inception, it would be appropriate to comparatively
analyse the cross examination of PW5 complainant/appellant Daljit Kaur
with contents of her complaint Ex. PA. In her complaint dated 11.02.2012
Ex.PA, she has specifically deposed that the land in dispute is in the
possession of her Balmiki community where they have built a temple and
also installed Nishansahib and one Kulwinder Singh who is stated to be a
property dealer is threatening them to grab that land. However, in her cross
examination as PW5, the appellant/complainant has admitted that the land in
dispute belongs to Punjab Waqf Board who had given the same to M/s
Prestige Farms where the said Kulwinder Singh was a partner and hence was
in possession of the said land. The said deposition finds its corroboration
from the testimony of DW4 Jameel Ahmed who, while producing the waqf
board record, testified that the land was given on lease to the afore stated of
firm of Kulwinder Singh.
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -15-
28. In her cross examination, the appellant also deposed that she
has seen the said Kulwinder Singh for the first time in the court on
02.11.2012. This is in direct contradiction with her allegation in her
compliant Ex. PA wherein she stated that Kulwinder Singh wanted to grab
the land in dispute and has been threatening them for months. Had
Kulwinder Singh been threatening them for months, she would not have
seen him for the first time in court. The absence of Kulwinder Singh has
been further corroborated by DW2 Balkar Singh, DSP (retd.), who deposed
that after necessary investigation, it was found out that Kulwinder Singh was
not present at the place of incident.
29. Apart from this, the repeated allegation of the
appellant/complainant, who has tried to give a religious colour to the instant
case, that her community had built a temple on the land and also installed
Nishansahib where they worship their God is hanging in the air as they have
neither produced any photographs depicting presence of temple or
Nishansahib on the land nor have they produced any other document which
would at least remotely hint at the presence of the same. On the other hand,
the testimony of DW3 Patwari, who brought the jamabandi of the land in
dispute has testified on record before the learned trial court not only
asserting the fact that the land belongs to the Punjab Waqf Board but also
that there is no such temple built on the said land as per the record.
30. In the light of the above said observations, this Court deems it
felicitous to discuss here the ingredients of Sections 148, 149 and 295 of IPC
in contrast with the allegations against the respondent/accused persons.
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -16-
31. Section 148, as defined under IPC, reads as-
148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon-
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a
deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
The afore stated section of 148 IPC merely prescribes the
maximum punishment that can be awarded to a person who is guilty of the
offence of Rioting armed with deadly weapon. However, to have a better
glimpse of what ‘rioting’ is, it would be necessary to go through section 146
of IPC as well, which reads as-
146. Rioting-
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful
assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of
the common object of such assembly, every member of
such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
If a person, being a part of an unlawful assembly which is
constituted when 5 or more persons do any act as prescribed under section
141 of IPC, uses force or violence in furtherance a common object of that
assembly, he can be held guilty of the offence of rioting. If such riots are
done with a deadly weapon, then that would constitute an offence under
section 148.
32. Further, Section 149 of IPC makes every such member, who
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -17-
was part of the unlawful assembly, guilty of the offence committed in
furtherance of common object of such unlawful assembly. Section 149 reads
as-
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common object-
If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object
of that assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the
time of the committing of that offence, is a member of
the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
33. In a layman terms, ‘common object’ as laid down in the
aforesaid provisions can be explained as a purpose which all the members
have agreed upon to achieve. In the present factual matrix, it has been
alleged that there was an unlawful assembly of around 20 people on the spot
of incident. In the present case, the alleged ‘common object’ of the people
forming unlawful assembly was to grab the land in dispute which was in the
alleged possession of Balmiki community. PW5 appellant/complainant has
alleged that Kulwinder along with the other people, armed with kirpan or
datar attacked them to take over the land. However, in her cross
examination, she deposed that the said land was already in the possession of
the said Kulwinder, given on lease by the Waqf Board. Hence, it is apparent
that stance/allegation of the appellant/complainant is full of doubts and it is
not at all logical that a person would lead an unlawful assembly to take
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -18-
possession of a property which is already in his possession. Also, no such
other common object can be carved out from the complaint of the appellant.
Hence, the essential ingredient of ‘common object’ as enshrined under
sections 148 and 149 is not at all established and therefore, the court is not
incline to interfere with the decision of learned trial court qua acquittal of
the respondent/accused persons under the said sections.
34. Section 295 IPC reads as-
295. Injuring or defiling place of worship with
intent to insult the religion of any class—
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any
place of worship, or any object held sacred by any
class of persons with the intention of thereby
insulting the religion of any class of persons or with
the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to
consider such destruction, damage or defilement as
an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
A base perusal of section 295 IPC makes it clear that a person
can be punished if he destroys or damages a place of worship or a sacred
object resulting into insulting the religion of a class of people. The essential
requirement of the said provision is that there must be some destruction or
defilement of a place of worship or a sacred object. Applying the same to the
facts of the present case, this court must firstly be convinced as to the
existence of a temple or Nishan sahib as has been alleged by the appellant.
However, after perusing the record of the case, there are no photographs or
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -19-
any other document brought in evidence by the prosecution depicting the
existence of a temple or Nishan sahib on the property. Furthermore, no
villager or any person residing near the property was examined to testify as
to the presence of such temple or Nishan sahib. Hence, when mere existence
of temple or Nishan sahib is doubtful and could not be proved by the
prosecution, we cannot proceed ahead to rule that the offence is made out
under section 295 IPC against the accused persons.
35. As far as the offence under section 3 of SC/ST Act is concerned,
it has come on record before us that the accused Piara Singh, who had
allegedly uttered the derogatory words has died and hence no findings can
be recorded against him since the criminal liability is personal and ceases
upon death of a person . However, even if the same is analysed in context of
section 120B, it does not seem that there existed any common object of the
alleged unlawful assembly to socially humiliate the persons belonging to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Therefore, the accused
persons who were part of the alleged unlawful assembly cannot be held
guilty under section 3 of SC/ST Act by virtue of section 149 of IPC.
36. As far as the offence u/s 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 is
concerned, the same will be dealt here in reference to the medical evidence
available on record before this court. The injuries are shown in the tabular
form as under-
INJURED TOTAL INJURIES NATURE
Tarsem 6 Simple
PW2 Rajinder 3 Simple
PW6 Yusuf 1 Simple
PW8 Ranjit 1 Grievous
PW12 Kuldeep 3 Simple
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -20-
Bachan Nath 6 Grievous
Ram Lubhaya 1 Simple
PW7 Piara 1 Simple
PW1 Gurdeep 3 Simple
37. The pillars of the case set up by the prosecution further shakes
in lieu of the fact that PW1- Gurdeep Kaur, PW2- Rajinder Kaur, PW7 Piara
and PW12- Kuldeep were declared hostile and have refused to support the
medical evidence before us while outrightly denying that any such incident
took place and have also bluntly denied that the accused persons have
caused injuries to them. Though Ram Lubhaya, Bhachan Nath and Tarsem
received injuries that too grievous in nature in case of Bachan Nath but they
were not examined by the prosecution before the learned trial court as
prosecution witnesses and hence, their medical record solely, would not shift
the weight in favour of the appellant.
38. As per the medical record of PW8 Ranjit Kaur, she received 1
injury i.e. fracture on nasal bone which is grievous in nature. However, in
her cross examination, she has herself deposed that the said injury could
have been caused by a fall as well. Also, as per the Doctor’s opinion, the
said injury of PW8 Ranjit Kaur could have been 1-2 weeks old as well.
Though, these observations might not hold much weight in isolation,
however, when the happening of the entire incident is under scanner, the
same cannot be dealt with mechanically.
39. The provision of section 307 IPC reads as-
307. Attempt to murder—
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -21-
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
40. The only injury at hand which could be examined to check
whether the culpability under Section 307 can be carved out or not, is the
injury allegedly suffered by PW8 Ranjit Kaur. As already discussed, PW8
suffered a fracture on nasal bone. For an act to be punishable under section
307 IPC, it must have been caused with the intention or knowledge that if
death is a direct result of the said act, it would be punishable for the offence
of murder.
41. In the present case, PW8 Ranjit Kaur suffered single injury
which allegedly resulted into fracture on nasal bone. The same cannot be
said to have been inflicted with such intention or knowledge as is required
under section 307 IPC. Moreover, there is no corroboration in the form of
any medical opinion stating it to be life threatening or dangerous to life
injury so as to bolster the allegation of the prosecution.
42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anoop Singh versus State of
Rajasthan 2025 (Law Finder) SC 1770 has observed that when the
testimony of an eye witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable,
then the court must look for corroboration from material particulars on
record. The Court observed as thus-
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -22-
30. It is well settled that conviction can be based solely
on the evidence of a solitary eye witness, provided such
witness is a wholly reliable witness.
31. If an eye witness is wholly reliable, then there should
not be any difficulty for the Court to accept his/her
evidence.
32. If the evidence of the eye witness is wholly unreliable
then the court should not hesitate to discard the entire
evidence. However, there is a third category wherein
the Court may find the evidence neither wholly reliable
nor wholly unreliable. In such circumstances, the
Court must insist for corroboration in material
particulars.
33. We have looked into the entire evidence of both the
eye witnesses i.e. PW-4 and PW-5 respectively. It's
difficult for us to believe both the eye witnesses. The
oral evidence of the two eye witnesses not inspiring
any confidence. There is no other evidence on record.
It appears that the discovery of the weapon under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has also not been
proved in accordance with law.
34. We find the oral evidence of both the eye witnesses
quite shaky and, in such circumstances, it would be
hazardous to hold the appellants guilty of a very
serious crime like murder.
43. It is also evident that the true genesis of the occurrence has not
been revealed by the accused. While the entire prosecution case rests on the
premise that the injured were in possession of the land, the evidence led in
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -23-
defence fails to prove the fact. It has been established from the record that
the land belonged to the Waqf and had been given on lease to the accused.
They were thus in possession. The complainant is thus seemingly an
aggressor, who had gone to the spot and take possession of the land. Hence,
even if the incident in question is accepted to be true, the accused had a right
to defend their possession and take such steps as are necessary to safeguard
their property and to dispel the aggressors.
44. In the instant case, PW1 and PW8 are the only material eye
witnesses, who have not turned hostile. It is correct that PW8 suffered an
injury, which was grievous in nature and hence, her testimony, being an eye
witness could have been relied upon. However, when seen with a bird’s eye
view i.e. along with other evidences on record, it loses its strong hold. The
fact that some crucial witnesses were not even examined by the prosecution,
the fact that appellant/complainant escaped uninjured, which was very
unlikely especially in view of the specific allegations, the fact that they
falsely stated of possessing the land in dispute are the factors, which does
not inspire confidence in this Court to show faith in their testimonies and
pursue us to reverse the decision of learned trial court.
45. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion and taking into
consideration the facts an circumstances like witnesses getting hostile, the
admitted absence of Kulwinder Singh at the time of incident, the possession
being already with Kulwinder, failure on part of the prosecution to establish
the presence of any temple or Nishan sahib on the property, we are of the
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -24-
view that the judgement of acquittal dated 26.09.2022 warrants no
interference from this court as the same does not suffer from any illegality.
46. Further, statements or allegations leading to a mere suspicion or
belief that a certain scenario may be possible, cannot replace proof in a
criminal case which necessitates proof beyond reasonable doubts. To
supplement the same, the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar
Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan 2013(5) SCC 722 is thus:
“17. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot
take the place of proof, and there is a large difference
between something that 'may be? proved and 'will be
proved? In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance
between 'may be? and 'must be? is quite large and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a
criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere
conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal
proof. The large distance between 'may be? true and
'must be? true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent
and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a
convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied.
In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance
between 'may be? true and 'must be? true, the court must
maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure
conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of
dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete
and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the
case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence
brought on record. The court must ensure, that
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CRA-AD-142-2023 -25-
miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that
a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a
merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based
upon reason and common sense.
Since, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, we are unable to find any illegality, impropriety,
perversity or misappreciation of evidence in the findings recorded and
conclusions drawn by learned trial court, particularly in view of the glaring
contradictions and material substance on record. Resultantly, finding no
merit in the present appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
47. The judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar arising out of FIR No.22 dated
11.02.2012, registered under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 295, 148, 149
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sadar,
Jalandhar, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused persons is hereby
affirmed .
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (RAVINDER MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
05.11.2026
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA
2026.11.12 19:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh