Major Singh vs State Ofpb.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 08, 2026
Major Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms.Jagriti Kalia, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.

ARCHANA PURI, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
20.05.2005, vide which, appellant-Major Singh was held guilty and
convicted for the commission offence under Section 302 IPC and he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default whereof, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years.
The factual narration is as herein given:-
That, complainant Harbans Singh s/o Jarnail Singh, caste Ramdasia
Sikh of village Jai Singh Wala, had one brother, namely Gurjant Singh
(since deceased) and three other brothers. After the death of Mithu Singh s/o
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Karnail Singh, elder paternal uncle of complainant and Gurjant Singh,

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -2-
Harbans Kaur alias Tejo, widow of Mithu Singh, had started living with
Gurjant Singh as his wife. Harbans Kaur, from her earlier marriage, had
given birth to a son namely, Baj Singh and one daughter, namely Sinder
Kaur. Gurjant Singh had one son namely, Balraj Singh. On 11.10.2003, at
about 9.30 PM, complainant Harbans Singh, along with his brother Major
Singh, was proceeding towards the house of Gurjant Singh, in connection
with some domestic work. When they reached in the street, near the house
of Harbans Kaur, they found Gurjant Singh and Harbans Kaur having
altercation. In the meantime, appellant-Major Singh, who was on visiting
terms with Baj Singh s/o Gurjant Singh, arrived there, while armed with soti
(dang) and he instantaneously gave soti blow, on the person of Gurjant
Singh, which struck on his head, near the ear. Appellant-Major Singh, then
again gave another soti blow, which hit Gurjant Singh on the left side of his
head near the ear. Complainant Harbans Singh and his brother Major Singh
raised alarm, upon which, appellant-Major Singh ran away from the spot
along with weapon of offence. It was night time. As there was no
arrangement made for the vehicle, thus, injured Gurjant Singh was removed
to Civil Hospital, Bathinda in the wee hours of 12.10.2003.
In pursuance of the receipt of information from Incharge, Police Post,
Civil Lines, Bathinda, about admission of Gurjant Singh, ASI Kulwinder
Singh had reached the hospital and in pursuance of an application filed at his
instance, the concerned medical officer (emergency) declared injured
Gurjant Singh to be not fit to make the statement. Thereupon, ASI
Kulwinder Singh had obtained MLR from the concerned doctor and
recorded statement of complainant Harbans Singh, who was present by the
side of Gurjant Singh, at the relevant time. Harbans Singh got recorded
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -3-
about there being differences between his brother Gurjant Singh and his
sister-in-law, on certain domestic isues, as a result whereof, they were living
separate. However, time and again, they used to have normal relations. Baj
Singh s/o Gurjant Singh had intimacy with appellant-Major Singh and
Gurjant Singh was having suspicion of wandering of Baj Singh, at the
instance of Major Singh (appellant). Gurjant Singh used to abstain Baj
Singh from having speaking terms with the appellant. On account of said
annoyance, appellant-Major Singh had caused injuries on the person of
Gurjant Singh.
On the basis of the statement of Harbans Singh, coupled with
the recitals of the MLR of the injured, a case under Section 323 IPC was
found to be made out by ASI Kulwinder Singh and accordingly, he made
endorsement on the statement and DDR entry bearing No.11 dated
12.10.2003 was made.
On 13.10.2003, SI Malkit Singh along with other police officials,
visited Civil Hospital and in pursuance of application filed, again the doctor
concerned, had declared injured Gurjant Singh to be not fit to make
statement.
On 14.10.2003, SI Malkit Singh received QST with regard to Gurjant
Singh having succumbed to the injuries, upon which, SI Malkit Singh
recorded the FIR under Section 302 IPC. He also incorporated an entry in
this regard in DDR at Sr.No.40 of 14.10.2003.
Further investigation was conducted by SI Malkit Singh, who
prepared the inquest report and handed over the dead body for conducting of
the autopsy. SI Malkit Singh along with other police officials and eye
witness Major Singh, had also visited the place of occurrence, in village Jai
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -4-
Singh Wala and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He
recorded the statements of various officials. Parcel of clothes of deceased
was also prepared, which was taken into possession vide separate memo.
The Investigating Officer conducted raid to apprehend the accused from the
period 14.10.2003 to 17.10.2003.
On 17.10.2003, for the search of accused (Major Singh), the
Investigating Officer had visited village Jai Singh Wala, where, at the bus
stand, complainant Harbans Singh had met him and he was associated with
the police party. While they were present at the bus stand of village Jai
Singh Wala, appellant-Major Singh arrived there and on the identification of
Harbans Singh, he was arrested.
In pursuance of the disclosure made by appellant-Major Singh, the
soti (dang) was got recovered from a room made for chaff (fodder) and said
soti was converted into parcel and taken into possession vide separate
memo. The site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared.
On completion of the investigation, challan was presented
against appellant-Major Singh.
After the needful compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the
commitment proceedings were conducted.
On the basis of the material brought on record, charge was
framed against appellant-Major Singh under Section 302 IPC, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To substantiate its claim, the prosecution examined as many as
nine witnesses, besides adducing documentary evidence. The resume of the
witnesses examined is PW-1 Dr.Sushil Gupta, EMO, who had conducted
medico-legal examination of the injured at first instance. PW-2 Dr.Charanjit
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -5-
Garg, SMO, conducted autopsy, on the dead body of Gurjant Singh. PW-3
Dr.Kamal Sharmma, Omega Diagnostic Centre, had conducted the CT-scan
of Gurjant Singh (since deceased). PW-4 and PW-5 are Harbans Singh
(complainant) as well as his brother Major Singh, had witnessed the
occurrence in question. PW-6 Head Constable Gurtej Singh and PW-7 Head
Constable Rajvinder Singh deposed with regard to manner of conducting of
the proceedings, during the course of investigation. PW-8 and PW-9, ASI
Kulwinder Singh and SI Malkit Singh, respectively, are the Investigating
Officers.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to appellant-
Major Singh, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he
pleaded innocence and asserted false implication. He put forth the plea that
Gurjant Singh (since deceased) was addicted to all vices. On 11.10.2003,
Gurjant Singh had fallen in the street at about 6.00 p.m., being under the
influence of intoxicant and his head had struck the ground twice. At that
time, he was abusing the people loudly, in front of house of Tej Kaur. The
neighbours, namely Mukand Singh, member panchayat, Pappi Singh, Jang
Singh and Balbir Singh were also present there. Tej Kaur had taken Gurjant
Singh to her house. Also, he took the plea that Harbans Singh and Major
Singh (who are the complainant and eye witness to the occurrence in
question) were not present. Thereafter, he learnt about the said fact from
Mukand Singh and Jang Singh. He also got recorded that PW-Major Sinjgh
was working as Siri with Ex-Sarpanch Hamir Singh, who was inimical
towards him because of his casting vote against him and that at the instance
of Hamir Singh, he has been implicated in the case falsely. No recovery was
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -6-
effected from him. He was arrested from his house on 13.10.2003, at about
8.00-9.00 a.m., in the presence of Phulla Singh and Mukand Singh and
detained illegally. He was shown to have been arrested, in the case later on.
In defence, appellant examined DW-1 Jang Singh and DW-2
Gurbhagat Singh.
After hearing, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned
defence counsel, learned trial Court had framed various points for
determination, as detailed in paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgment.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, vide impugned judgment,
appellant-Major Singh was held guilty, convicted and sentenced, as detailed
in the earlier portion of the judgment.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State
counsel heard and with their able assistance, we have gone through the
record.
At the very outset, counsel for the appellant, has submitted that
even though, the prosecution built its case on direct evidence, but however,
counsel painstakingly has drawn our attention to the contents of FIR, timing
of the same, testimonies of eye witnesses, as well as medical and other
material evidence, brought on record, to assert falsity of the prosecution
version. In fact, counsel submit that the testimonies of both the complainant-
Harbans Singh and his brother Major Singh, who is also an eye witness, is
not above board. They were never present at the spot of occurrence, at the
relevant time and their post-occurrence conduct, as spelt out from the
evidence, also strengthens this claim. There was long silence and no
disclosure about inflicting of injuries upon Gurjant Singh was made by the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -7-
complainant and his brother Major Singh, soon after the occurrence and
even, injured Gurjant Singh was taken to the hospital, on the next date.
Counsel also further submits that this conduct is not the expected normal
behaviour of the brothers of the injured. Precisely, on this account, there is
also delay in lodging of the FIR.
Even, learned counsel submits that the medical evidence is at variance
with the ocular version. Since, both the injuries described in the medico-
legal report Ex.PA are reddish contusion with swelling only and there is no
dimension given of both the injuries. The possibility of these injuries being
the result of fall against hard surface, as such, cannot be ruled out, in the
absence of the any dimension of injuries coming forth. In fact, counsel also
makes reference to the testimony of Dr.Kamal Sharma, who had found
haematomma in the scanned report and according to him also, it is possible
by a fall on hard surface. Furthermore, two witnesses, namely Jang Singh
and Gurbhagat Singh examined as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, also
strengthen this claim.
Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
absolutely no motive for the appellant to give soti blow to Gurjant Singh and
the motive allegedly raised by the prosecution about Gurjant Singh to be
suspecting Baj Singh, to be led astray by appellant-Major Singh, does not
stand proved. The version of motive, as such, is too far fetched and vague.
Also, counsel for the appellant had laid much emphasis upon the
offence under Section 302 IPC, in any case, not being made out. He submits
that only two injuries and that too, with soti were allegedly inflicted. The
injuries were found to be simple after CT Scan. Therefore, the requisite
intention to commit murder to bring home the charge, is evidently missing.
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -8-
Thus, summing up his arguments, counsel for the appellant, has made
a prayer for acceptance of the appeal.
On the other hand, learned State counsel refutes the claim of the
appellant. In fact, learned State counsel submits that it is case of direct
evidence and that too, at the instance of brothers of Gurjant Singh, who were
proceeding to meet Gurjant Singh for some domestic work, at the relevant
time. When Gurjant Singh was present in the street, at the spot of
occurrence, while having altercation with Harbans Kaur, accused Major
Singh had come, well prepared and inflicted two fatal blows to Gurjant
Singh. In fact, she submits that both the eye witnesses have categorically
deposed about the manner of taking place of the occurrence. They faced
cross-examination, but nothing material elicited out to dislodge their
versions. Their testimonies are most natural and trustworthy. Even, Gurjant
Singh, after inflicting of the blows, was rendered unconscious. Considering
this state of affairs, coupled with medical evidence brought on record, the
same unerringly point the needle of guilt towards appellant Major Singh.
Learned State counsel further submits that there is no delay in
initiation of the action. In fact, she submits that the complainant and his
brothers, belong to lower strata of society, being labourers. They were
dumbstruck by the injuries inflicted upon Gurjant Singh and got busy in
taking care of Gurjant Singh. Furthermore, they faced constraints, on
account of non-arrangement of a vehicle. At the earliest opportune time,
after a conveyance was arranged, in the wee hours, they took Gurjant Singh
to Civil Hospital.
Learned State counsel further submits that the defence plea about the
injuries having inflicted on the person of Gurjant Singh, by fall on the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -9-
ground, due to inebriation, does not established. Even, additional credence
is lent to the prosecution version by the factum of recovery of weapon of
offence, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by appellant-Major
Singh.
Thus, learned State counsel makes prayer for dismissal of the appeal.
In a criminal case, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt. The suspicion, however grave, cannot take
place of proof and that the prosecution, in order to succeed on a criminal
charge, cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true”, but has
to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. Whenever any
reasonable doubt is spelt out, the benefit of doubt, ought to be extended to
the accused. However, such a doubt, essentially has to be reasonable and
not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non existent, but as entertainable by an
impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch-stone of reason
and common sense.
The case before us is of direct evidence, wherein, complainant
Harbans Singh and his brother Major Singh, are stated to have witnessed the
entire incident, wherein their other brother Gurjant Singh was inflicted
injuries by appellant-Major Singh, with the help of soti. He came to the
spot, while armed with soti and instantaneously attacked Gurjant Singh and
gave two blows with the soti. It be noted that there was no altercation
between the appellant and others, at the spot. Consequently, there was no
provocation of any kind, soon before inflicting of the injuries.
ASI Kulwinder Singh, Investigating Officer, in pursuance of
Gurjant Singh being opined by the concerned doctor to be not fit for making
statement, had got recorded the statement of Harbans Singh, on the basis
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -10-
whereof, FIR was got registered. Therein, the complainant has specifically
stated about the incriminating role of appellant-Major Singh and manner of
inflicting of number of blows on both sides of face and head of Gurjant
Singh.
The ocular evidence, primarily is of Harbans Singh, who
stepped into witness box as PW-4. He has categorcially deposed that he
along with his other brother Major Singh proceeded to the house of Gurjant
Singh, in connection with domestic work on 11.10.2003 at about 9.00-9.30
p.m. When they reached near the house of Gurjant Singh, they had seen
Gurjant Singh and his wife standing in the street, outside their house.
Appellant-Major Singh, while armed with soti, came from the side of his
house and gave a blow of soti, on the right side of head, near the ear of
Gurjant Singh. Another blow was given with the soti, which struck on the
left side of head of Gurjant Singh, near the ear. He also categorically stated
that there was electric bulb lit, near the courtyard of house of Mukand Singh,
existing in the vicinity. On sustaining injuries, Gurjant Singh fell on the
ground. They raised alarm, upon which, Major Singh had fled away from
the spot.
Even, Major Singh, another eye witness to the occurrence and
who is brother of complainant as well as deceased Gurjant Singh, while in
the witness box as PW-5, has also deposed on similar lines, vis-a-vis,
manner of causing of the occurrence by appellant-Major Singh and the
inflicting blows with the soti, on the vital part of body i.e. head.
In fact, from the testimonies of both the said witnesses, it is
evident that the eye witnesses had remained unshaken, in both, their
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, on the aspect of role assigned
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -11-
to appellant-Major Singh, who inflicted injuries upon Gurjant Singh, which
ultimately proved to be fatal.
It is well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that direct
ocular evidence, if found to be natural, cogent and trustworthy, constitutes
the best form of evidence and ordinarily prevails over all forms of evidence.
Herein, considering the testimonies of the complainant and another eye
witness, there is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of two eye
witnesses, on the basis whereof, this Court could formulate its opinion of
they being not true or reliable witness. Though, few contradictions or
discrepancies in the form of distance of the houses of the eye witnesses from
the spot or from the house of Gurjant Singh and such like, have been pointed
out, but however, such like contradictions are not sufficient to discard the
entire testimonies of the eye witnesses.
A faint attempt was also made, while appraising the testimony
of the complainant and another eye witness Major Singh, about they being
related to the victim and therefore, fall in the bracket of being
related/interested witnesses and therefore, their testimonies are to be
discarded. However, a witness can be regarded, as an interested witness,
only when it can be shown that such witness has direct motive, personal
animosity or any other reason to falsely implicate the accused. In the given
case, no such reason is coming forth to establish any animosity of the
witnesses with the appellant or any other reason to falsely implicate him.
Even though, to build the defence about the bitterness being there, on
account of partisan role of the appellant in the panchayat elections, at the
instance of Hamir Singh, Ex-sarpanch and that Hamir Singh was inimical
about appellant-Major Singh, for having casted vote against him, but
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -12-
however, such plea, does not stand established. Even though, DW2
Gurbhagat Singh has been examined, who stated about Major Singh and his
father Babu Singh etc., having casted their vote, in favour of Jaspal Kaur,
who was candidate against the wife of Hamir Singh and that Hamir Singh
started nursing grudge against Major Singh and Babu Singh. However, but
for the statement of Gurbhagat Singh, to this effect, nothing as such, came
forth with regard to conducting of the elections or outcome of the same or
any other form of material to establish about such animosity or bitterness on
this account. However, DW-2 Gurbhagat Singh took this plea for the first
time, while deposing as defence witness. Never earlier, he had moved any
application to the police about falsity of the prosecution version or asserted
about the same before any other forum. Not only this, it is also pertinent to
mention that this version of dispute or bitterness was never put to the eye
witnesses in their cross-examination. Considering the same, it be noted that
a close relative, who is very natural witness to the occurrence, as such,
cannot be regarded as interested witness. In the case in hand, the
complainant and eye witness Major Singh, were proceeding to the house of
Gurjant Singh for some domestic work. Enroute, they met Gurjant Singh
and witnessed the occurrence. As such, they cannot be termed as
‘interested’ as it is quite obvious that the brothers of Gurjant Singh, would
be the last persons to screen the real culprit, more particularly when no
vested interest, on their part, is spelt out to falsely implicate the appellant.
Thus, the contention of counsel for the appellant is devoid of any
merit, since, mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness
interested or unreliable.
Even though, much emphasis has been laid upon the aspect of
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -13-
motive, not being proved, at the instance of the prosecution and that even
appellant Major Singh had no motive to cause injuries, but, when there is
direct evidence coming forth, then the motive, as such, pales into
insignificance. In fact, motive always remains embedded in the mind of the
culprit, which no one else can matter. That being so and considering the
testimonies of the DWs, no such bitterness carried by the eye witnesses, on
account of panchayat elections, is evident. Rather, the complainant and his
brother, who accompanied him at the relevant time, have categorically spelt
out the background of appellant, having animosity with Gurjant Singh, on
account of being refrained by Gurjant Singh to remain away from Baj Singh,
as he used to wander off Baj Singh. The motive is a double edged weapon,
as set up by the appellant entangled him only on this aspect. Otherwise the
motive as such does not carry much weight when the case rests upon the
direct evidence, as in the case in hand.
Additional credence to the version of eye witnesses is also lent
by the medical evidence. PW-1 Dr,Sushil Gupta, had conducted medico-
legal examination of victim Gurjant Singh on 12.10.2003. He had found the
following injuries on his person:-
“1. Reddish colour contusion with swelling all over the right
temporal region, including right ear and all over the face at their
right side. X-ray was advised.
2. Reddish colour contusion with swelling at the left side of
face below the left side. X-ray was advised.”
He also deposed that patient was in an unconscious condition
and that the injuries were kept under observation. The kind of weapon used
was blunt for both the injuries and he proved the MLR. Further, in cross-
examination he had specifically stated injury No.1 is not possible by fall on
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -14-
hard surface and he also deposed that Gurjant Singh was brought in the
hospital in an unconscious condition. Even, PW-2 Dr.Charanjit Garg, had
deposed about having conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurjant Singh
on 14.10.2003 and has further found following upon the same:-
“1. It was the dead body of male, moderately built and
nourished. Eyes and mouth were closed. It was wearing Chola
and Kachha. Post mortem staining was present on dependent
parts. Rigiour mortis was fully developed. There was a bluish
bruise with swelling over the right temporo parietal region of
skull, including ear and face. On dissection, sub cutaneous
haemotoma was present.
2. There was bluish bruises with swelling on left temporo
parietal region and over the left face below the eye. On
dissection, sub cutaneous haemotoma was present and sub dural
haemotoma measuring 10 x 10 cm was present.”
He also deposed that in his opinion the cause of death in this case was
shock and haemmorhage, which was due to injuries suffered by the
deceased, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death, in
normal course of nature. He also deposed that injuries could be result of soti
blows. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that both the injuries,
which were appearing on the body, were not possible by striking the head
with the wall, which in itself counters the claim, as set up in defence, by way
of examination of DW-1.
Not only this, even PW-3 Dr.Kamal Sharma, had conducted CT-Scan
of head of Gurjant Singh and he deposed that the scan revealed acute
subdural haematoma, on the left temporo parietal region, measuring 8.2 mm
in maximum width and proved the report as well as the CT-Scan film.
Counsel for the appellant submits that no dimensions, as such, of the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -15-
injuries were given in the MLR. May it be so, that dimensions were not
mentioned, but however, in the CT-Scan report, the dimensions have been
given. It states about acute subdural haematoma, on the left temporal
parietal region, measuring 8.2 mm, in maximum. Furthermore also, PW-2
Dr.Charanjit Garg had stated that on dissection, sub-cutaneous haematoma
was present and subdural haematoma 10x10 cm was present. Thus, it cannot
be concluded that no dimensions of the injuries, as such, were given.
Thus, considering the testimonies of medical specialists and
more particularly, considering their cross-examinations, it is evident that the
injuries were opined specifically to be not caused by strike with the wall.
However, DW-1 Jang Singh had been examined, who stated about
deceased to be under influence of liquor and fell on the ground and number
of times on the brick bats, lying near the house of Mukand Singh, but
however, the same, as such does not stand established. It was for the first
time, while appearing as witness on 11.04.2005, DW-1 Jang Singh had so
stated.
In the light of the same, the testimony of Jang Singh is not free
from doubt and seemingly is a false version set up to render assistance to
Major Singh appellant.
Furthermore, counsel for the appellant submits that appropriate
medical aid was not extended, despite reference having made to PGI
Chandigarh/DMC Ludhiana. In this regard, counsel has pointed to the
recitals of reference in the admission record of Gurjant Singh, which is
Ex.PC. The doctor concerned, as evident from the admission record had
referred Gurjant Singh PGI, Chandigarh/DMC Ludhiana, but however, even
if not so taken, the benefit of the omission, as such, cannot be taken by the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -16-
appellant. One has to consider that the victim and his brothers belong to
lower strata of society, as they were indulging in labour work only. There
may be several constraints faced by them to further take the victim to the
referred places, as at earlier instance, to reach the hospital nearby, also they
could not arrange the vehicle and on this account, they had reached hospital
along with Gurjant Singh in the wee hours of succeeding day. Thus, this
factor, singularly is not to be considered.
Also, much emphasis is laid on delay in initiation of action. As
already observed aforesaid, the occurrence had taken place at about 9.30
p.m. on 11.10.2003. Soon after the occurrence, it is quite obvious that
witnesses were more interested in taking care of the injured, who was in
unconscious condition. Furthermore, eye witnesses have deposed that they
were making efforts to arrange the vehicle, but could not arrange. No doubt,
as submitted by counsel for the appellant, village Jai Singh Wala is a big
village and also the vehicles, may be available with many residents, more
particularly, Mukand Singh, living nearby the spot of occurrence, but
however, one has to consider the circumstances faced by the eye witnesses,
as they were labourers. Without anything spelt out, one cannot conclude
about people, living in the vicinity, to readily offer their vehicles. No
sooner, the vehicle was arranged in wee hours of 12.10.2003, injured
Gurjant Singh was taken to the hospital. As evident from the MLR Ex.PC, at
6.40 a.m., even on 12.10.2003, the patient was examined by the doctor.
Thereupon, in pursuance of the information sent by the doctor to the SHO,
Police Post, Civil Lines, Bathinda, the same was received by one Head
Constable at 7.30 a.m. Furthermore, PW-8 ASI Kulwinder Singh,
Investigating Officer also stated that on 12.10.2003, he had received a QST
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -17-
message from the Police Post, Civil Lines, Bathinda, with regard to the
admission of Gurjant Singh in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. He also deposed
that he had gone to Police Post, Civil Lines, Bathinda and obtained the copy
of MLR. Then, he visited Civil Hospital. Thereupon, in pursuance of the
application filed by him, the injured was declared to be unfit to make the
statement and then, he recorded the statement of Harbans Singh and made
DDR entry bearing No.11. On the succeeding day i.e. 13.10.2003, again SI
Malkit Singh, who also conducted part investigation of the case, had moved
an application for obtaining opinion qua fitness of the victim to make
statement, but however, the concerned doctor again opined that the patient
was unfit to make the statement. On 14.10.2003, QST was received with
regard to death of Gurjant Singh, only whereupon, DDR No.40 dated
14.10.2003 was entered and FIR was got registered and special reports were
dispatched to the officers concerned.
Thus, the above seriatim of facts do reveal that there is no unexplained
delay, on the part of the complainant. In fact, the delay stands duly
explained, in view of the manner of the proceedings conducted, as aforesaid.
Though, plea of sustaining of injuries by deceased Gurjant Singh,
while having fallen twice in the street, being in a state of inebriation, has
been taken, which the appellant came to know from Mukand Singh and Jang
Singh, but however, as observed earlier, it was only when Jang Singh
stepped into witness box as DW-1, such plea came forth. Never he had
appeared before the police to apprise about falsity of the case, on this
account or about the kind of injuries sustained in this manner. It was for the
first time, coming at the time of recording of his evidence on 11.04.2005.
This long silence during the interregnum period, as such, also belies the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -18-
defence plea so taken.
The prosecution version further gains strength from the fact of
recovery of the soti (dang) i.e. the weapon of offence, at the instance of
appellant, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him and that too
recovered, from the fodder room. Though, it is submitted that chowkidar of
the village was not made witness to the disclosure statement, but however, it
matters not much, as complainant Harbans Singh had already joined the
proceedings, when he, per chance, met the police party on 17.10.2003. As
such, the plea on this count, so raised is rejected.
Also, counsel for the appellant had laid much emphasis upon the case
under Section 302 IPC not made out and that at the maximum, it can be
taken to be covered under Section 304-II IPC. It is submitted that appellant
Major Singh had no intention to cause death of Gurjant Singh, as he was
never armed with deadly weapon. He was only having a soti (dang) of 4 feet
and gave two blows only. Even, the victim had not suffered any fracture.
The distinction between culpable homicide, amounting to
murder and not amounting to murder, is well known. Culpable homicide is
genus, murder is its specie. The culpable homicide, excluding the special
characteristics of murder, would amount to culpable homicide, not
amounting to murder. The Penal Code recognizes three degrees of culpable
homicide. When a culpable homicide is of the first degree, it comes within
the purview of the definition of Section 300 and it will amount to murder.
The second degree, which becomes punishable in the first part of Section
304, is culpable homicide of second degree. Then there is culpable homicide
of third degree, which is the least side of culpable homicide and the
punishment provided for, is also the lowest among the punishments for the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -19-
three grades. It is punishable under the second part of Section 304.
To render culpable homicide as murder, the case must come
within the provisions of clause (1) or (2) or (3) or (4) of Section 300 IPC.
Section 299 IPC defines the offence of culpable homicide; Section 300 IPC
defines the circumstances, in which the offence of culpable homicide will, in
absence of exceptions laid down therein, amount to murder. While
considering the requisite intention, as in case of murder, the enquiry
necessary proceeds on broad lines, as evident from the facts and
circumstances of each case. One distinctive circumstance, may lead to the
different conclusion of being murder or not. However, the kind of enquiry is
broad based and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry
that "an ordinary man" could readily appreciate and understand.
Adverting to the case in hand, it is pertinent to mention that
both the eye witnesses deposed that appellant-Major Singh, while armed
with soti (dang) had instantaneously given soti blows, firstly, on the right
side of head, which struck near the ear and then on the left side of the head
to the similar extent and then fled away with the weapon of offence.
Though, occurrence, as such, has been described, but in the minimum, it can
be taken that there was no sudden fight or heat of passion or any provocation
by any person present nearby. Rather, the intention is writ large, as the
appellant had come prepared. This intention stands crystallised as he struck
the blows on vital/dangerous part of body of Gurjant Singh and the same
was given with full strength/sufficient force, by a person falling in the age
group of 24-25 years, which rendered the victim unconscious and he never
gained consciousness, thereafter.
This conduct itself speaks volumes about malafide intention, on the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -20-
part of appellant Major Singh. No doubt, as submitted, the weapon of
offence was not dangerous, taken by itself, but however, this soti (dang) also
was proved to be no less, in the manner, it was used. As observed above, the
intentional manner of hitting with the same, with full strength, on vital part
of the body, which rendered Gurjant Singh unconscious, it was used as
dangerous weapon. Merely because, no fracture was caused/found, cannot
take out the case, out of the purview of Section 302 IPC, when Gurjant
Singh had died, due to the injuries, as PW-2 Dr.Charanjit Singh had stated
that in his opinion, the cause of death in this case was shock and
haemmorhage, which was due to injuries suffered by the deceased, which
were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death, in normal course
of nature.
In this regard, beneficial reference is made to decision rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Jai Dutt and another,
2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 759, wherein, it was observed that merely because
no fracture was noticed, and/or found, cannot take case out of Section 302
IPC, when the injured died due to head injury.
Thus, considering the manner, in which two blows were given and the
impact of the same, the intention to cause death is evident and on this
premise, the murder, as such, has been caused by the appellant.
In the light of the aforesaid observations, learned trial Court has
rightly held appellant-Major Singh, to be guilty and convicted him under
Section 302 IPC. Thus, the appeals sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Accused-appellant, namely, Major Singh is on bail. A copy of
the judgment be sent to concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, to initiate
process of re-arrest of the appellant, so as to serve the remaining part of the
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-D-419-DB of 2005 -21-
sentence.
The pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARCHANA PURI)
JUDGE
(MANDEEP PANNU)
JUDGE
September 08, 2026
Vgulati
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VINEET GULATI
2026.09.08 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document