Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

This petition has been filed seeking issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to handover the investigation pertaining to murder of Sukhraj

Singh and pertaining to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and his brother Tejpal Singh in the same incident to any independent agency.

The matter arises out of FIR No.185 dated 06.07.2020 registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar Rural, under Sections 307, 458, 353, 186,

447, 511, 148, 149, 188 & 269 IPC; Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act; Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, lodged at the instance of Dilpreet Singh @ Dippy, wherein it has been alleged that he is nephew of Baba Ajit Singh

Puhla and has been residing at Dera Baba Ajit Singh Puhla alongwith his mother. They were having a dispute regarding land with Ranjit Singh in

respect of which the matter was pending in the Court of FCR, Chandigarh. It is alleged therein that since the complainant apprehended that Ranjit

Singh in order to take forcible possession would attack them, they had moved an application to the Police Authorities and on the basis of which 15

Police personnel had been deputed for their protection. It is alleged that on 06.07.2020 at about 3.30 AM while they were sleeping in the Dera, they

heard gun-shots and upon hearing the same, they came out of their rooms and saw that Ranjit Singh, Sahib Singh, Gurdev Singh, Harjit Singh,

Harpinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Nihang Sukha Singh, Sukhdev Singh accompanied by 15/20 other unknown persons, who were carrying sticks and

rifles, had entered into the Dera and have attacked them and were firing gun shots indiscriminately. Although the police tried to restrain them, but they

fired gun-shots towards the police party as well. The complainant alleged that in order to protect himself and other members of his family, he also fired

from his licensed double barrel .12 bore gun and it is possible that some shots might have hit the assailants. It has specifically been stated that had the

complainant not fired, then he or other members of his family might have lost their lives.

The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which CCTV footage was also collected and on the basis of which a challan was

filed against the accused including the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where none from the side of the complainant has been injured, whereas one person

from the side of the accused, namely, Sukhraj Singh has died while the petitioner as well as Tejpal Singh sustained gun-shot injuries and in respect of

which the police has not taken any action.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by the counsel for the complainant has submitted that the matter has been thoroughly inquired

by the SIT and upon examining the CCTV footage, it has transpired that it is the accused party, who were the aggressors and had assembled together

at an adjacent petrol pump and had formed unlawful assembly and had thereafter attacked the complainant party and that in these circumstances,

even if the complainant Dilpreet Singh had fired at the accused party, the same was obviously for the purpose of self-defence.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

Since it is a case where one person has died from the side of the accused and the petitioner as well as one more has sustained injuries, it will

certainly be desirable that the version of the petitioner be also examined and in case the same is found credible, then necessary steps warranted under

law be taken thereupon. The petition, as such, is accepted with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record the version of the petitioner’s side

and to examine the same and to take necessary steps as may be warranted under law in case the same is found to be credible.