AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 13,2006

AVTAR SINGH,RAJINDER SINGH,SEWA SINGH,SANDHURA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SIDDHNATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOW CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL BABA TIGGA VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2011-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
HARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKHILAWAN YADAV VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-27] [REFERRED]
TULSIRAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-28] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH S/O BHULAWAN SATNAMI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-4-73] [REFERRED]
KONDI BAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHETANLAL VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2010-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH @ CHIYAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-51] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B. P. Singh, J. - (1.)There are 9 appellants in these four appeals which have been preferred against a common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated July 1, 2005 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 671-DB/2003; 701-DB/2003 and 696-DB/2003. The appellants had been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda by his judgment and order dated 5th August 2003 and 7th August, 2003 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They had also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC. They had also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months each respectively under Section 148 and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences had been directed to run concurrently. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 1st July, 2005 dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 5th August, 2003 and 7th August, 2003.
(2.)The facts of this case disclose that in village Kamalu there were two groups inimically disposed towards each other which resulted in several murders. The appellants herein belong to one group while the family members of the informant and others belong to the rival group. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th November, 1989 the informant Chhoto, PW-1, along with her brother Shivraj Singh and her sister-in-law (brothers wife) Balbir Kaur, PW-2 went to their fields in Village Bangi Kalan where they had also constructed a farm house. While they were there, the appellants came on a jeep and a tractor variously armed with deadly weapons including a double barrel gun. They also belong to village Kamalu, the village of the informant. Seeing them, the informants brother Shivraj Singh hid himself in a room meant for storing chaff but the accused set the room on fire so that he was compelled to come out. He was immediately abducted by the appellants. The informant apprehended that they may kill Shivraj Singh. It is an undisputed fact that thereafter no one has seen Shivraj Singh alive, nor was his body recovered. The prosecution, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the appellants abducted Shivraj Singh and thereafter killed him.
(3.)The case of the informant PW-1 is that soon after the occurrence she returned to her village and immediately reported the matter to Namberdar Gurnam Singh and Chokidar Tohla Singh (both not examined). Along with them she went to P.S. Raman but despite their insistence the police did not take any interest in the matter and did not record the information she wanted to give. They, therefore, came back to the village. The informant admitted in her deposition that except the Namberdar and the Chowkidar she did not report the matter to any other person in the village on that day. She, in particular, named Major Singh Thanedar, PW-6, and stated that she had met him in P.S. Raman but he refused to take down the information which she wanted to lodge.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.