Follow Us
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 22
Five years after an SAD worker was killed in Mohali following a fight during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the eve of the 2019 poll results, upheld the life sentence slapped on eight convicts.
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu ruled that the prosecution had proved its case against the convicts beyond reasonable doubt.
The matter was placed before the Bench after Mohali Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced Harpreet Singh, Gursewak Singh Bhoot, Rupinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kamaldeep Singh, Gagandeep Singh and Sukhpreet Singh in October last year.
They, along with co-accused Gaurav Patial, were charged and tried for murder, criminal intimidation and other offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 341 and 506 of the IPC. Patial was declared proclaimed offender during the trial.
During the course of hearing, the Bench was told that the motive behind the occurrence was that a quarrel had taken place between the victim, Gurjant Singh of Seaow village, and Sukhpreet Singh, one of the accused, during the 2014 elections. The victim was at a vehicle service station in Mohali on July 7, 2014, when he was killed.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Sharma asserted there was previous enmity between the parties. The statements made by the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC showed that Gurjant Singh and another person had caused injuries to appellant Sukhpreet Singh and were pressuring the appellants to compromise the matter.
Justice Sharma added that as many as 21 injuries were inflicted on the victim and the prosecution had examined two eyewitnesses. “The maximum injuries on Gurjant Singh were on vital parts of the body. The appellants had attacked Gurjant Singh with deadly weapons, which led to his death. They constituted unlawful assembly with intention to kill Gurjant. They have rightly been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, 341, 506 and 148 of the IPC”.
Referring to the alibis taken by the accused during the course of trial, Justice Sharma added that the plea was a double-edged weapon. In case the accused failed to prove the plea of alibi, his presence at the spot could not be ruled out. The Supreme Court had held that once the prosecution succeeded in discharging the burden, it was incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with absolute certainty to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.