SURJIT SINGH AND ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 
323 
• >-
the appellants along with other co-accused committed criminal trespass into A 
the house of deceased and also formed an unlawful assembly, though such 
attempt was frustrated by the presence of deceased's sons. They surely had 
an ill-motive, although the nature thereof was not known nor has been proved. 
Forcible entry of the appellant in the house of H stands established. Thus, the 
ingredients of s. 450 IPC stand fully satisfied. The~efore, the trial Judge as B 
also the High Court rightly convicted the appellants under section 450. 
(Paras 7, 8 and 9) (325-B, C, D, EJ 
1.3. Appellants have already served out about 4 or 5 years' imprisonment 
and hence the sentence awarded by the trial court and the High Court is 
substituted by the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone. C 
(Para 10) [325-FJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 
2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 0 l.12.2005 of the High Court D 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 9-DB of 2002. 
Bimal Roy, Sunita Pandit and B.K. Khurana for the Appellants. 
,.. 
Kawaljit Kochar and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the 
impugned judgment and order dated 1.12.2005 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9-DB/2002 by which the appeal of the 
appellants against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur F 
dated 6.12.2001 have been dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the · 
appellants under Sections 302/148/149/450 IPC have been maintained. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
3. There were five accused in this case before the trial court, but this G 
appeal has been filed only on behalf of two accused viz., accused No. 3 Surjit 
Singh, son of Gian Singh and accused No. 5 Daljit Singh, son of Assa Singh. 
It may be mentioned that there is another co-accused named Surjit Singh @ 
Bagga, son of Kartar Singh, but we are not concerned with him in this case. 
It may also be mentioned that all the five co-accused are policemen. 
H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
4. The prosecntion case was that the deceased Harbans Kaur was living 
in village Beri along with her sons Mohan Singh and Rattan Singh. It is 
alleged that on 21.2.1997 at about 6 P .M. Harbans Kaur went out to ease 
herself when the accused said some indecent words to her and she returned 
to her home. At that time Mohan Singh, son of the deceased Harbans Kaur 
B was outside in the field and when he came home he found his younger 
brother already in the house. Mohan Singh saw t?e accused coming to his 
house and he followed them. He heard some screaming in the house and saw 
from the wiiidow that his mother was lying without her salwar and accused 
Lakhwinder Singh was in the process of wearing his trouser. All the accused 
were present in the said room at that time. On seeing this Mohan Singh 
C shouted but the accused Daljit Singh is said to have pointed a pistol towards 
· him and threatened that if he shouts he will be finished off. Surjit Singh @ 
Bagga, son of Kartar Singh allegedly said that in. case Harbans Kaur remains 
alive she would implicate all the accused and hence she should be killed. It 
. is alleged that thereupon Harinderjit Singh gave a brickbat blow on the head 
D ofHarbans Kaur, as a result of which she died. It is alleged that after throwing 
the body of Harbans Kaur in the courtyard the accused ran away. 
5. It may be mentioned that in the FIR dated 21.2.1997 the version given 
by Rattan Singh, younger brother of Mohan Singh is different from the 
depositions of the witnesses before the trial court. In the FIR it is only stated 
E that when Rattan Singh returned home at about 6 P.M. he saw the dead body 
of his mother Harbans Kaur lying in the courtyard. None of the accused were 
named in the FIR and the version given therein indicates that nobody saw 
the assailants. However, as rightly noted by the trial court as well as by the 
High Court, the accused were all police men, while the family of the deceased 
are poor labourers. The FIR was signed by Rattan Singh who was only 12 
F years' old at that time. We agree with the High Court that Suh Inspector 
Swaran Singh appears to have deliberately concocted a false FIR not naming 
the accused since he belon

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.