Convictions under Sections 459, 460 and 148 IPC upheld on corroborated injured eyewitness testimony.

During the night of 17–18 September 2001, a group of armed persons allegedly entered the residences of Jasbir Kaur’s family and her uncle’s family outside village Bharowal. The assailants, armed with sotas, dangs and datars, assaulted the occupants, causing the death of Gurmit Kaur and grievous injuries to Rajbir Singh, Surinder Singh, Amrik Kaur and Sukhchain Singh. Household articles were scattered and cash and a gold ring were allegedly taken.

On the basis of Jasbir Kaur’s statement, the FIR was registered. The injured witnesses identified the accused, and the medical and post-mortem evidence supported the prosecution case.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, convicted the appellants under Sections 459, 460 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 459 and 460 IPC, with fines, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC.

During the pendency of CRA-S-256-SB of 2006, appellants Karaj Singh @ Kaju and Joginder Singh died, and the appeal stood abated against them.

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed offences punishable under Sections 459, 460 and 148 IPC by participating in the armed house-breaking and assault resulting in death and grievous injuries.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, suffered from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Whether the sentence required reduction when the appellants had already undergone ten years of custody, including remissions.

The Court applied Section 459 IPC, which criminalises lurking house-trespass or house-breaking accompanied by voluntarily causing grievous hurt or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt; Section 460 IPC, which imposes liability on persons jointly concerned in night house-trespass or house-breaking where death or grievous hurt is caused; and Section 148 IPC, which penalises rioting while armed with a deadly weapon or an instrument likely to cause death.

The Court relied on the general principle that a conviction may be sustained where the ocular testimony of reliable witnesses is corroborated by medical, post-mortem and investigative evidence.

The Court found the testimony of PW1 Jasbir Kaur and injured witness PW2 Surinder Singh reliable, noting that Surinder Singh identified all the accused and supported the prosecution case.

Their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence relating to the injured persons, the radiological evidence concerning Rajbir Singh, and the post-mortem report establishing that Gurmit Kaur died from shock and haemorrhage caused by an injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The investigative evidence further supported the prosecution version. On this cumulative evidence, the Court held that the appellants had participated in the armed occurrence and had caused the death and grievous injuries alleged, thereby justifying their convictions under Sections 459, 460 and 148 IPC.

Since the custody certificates showed that the appellants had already undergone ten years of custody, including remissions, the Court found no further basis for reducing the sentence.

Both CRA-S-1508-SB of 2005 and CRA-S-256-SB of 2006 were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22 February 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, were affirmed.

The appeal had already abated qua deceased appellants Karaj Singh @ Kaju and Joginder Singh.

The pending applications were disposed of, and the fee of the Amicus Curiae was assessed at ₹20,000, payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee.