Land Dispute Acquittal: High Court Ruling

Delve into the intriguing case of the Land Dispute Acquittal, where the High Court’s ruling was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The case revolves around a conflict stemming from a land dispute, with Sawinder Singh and others as the accused. Medical evidence contradicted eyewitness testimonies, leading to the acquittal. Explore the nuances of this legal saga where justice prevailed in the face of conflicting narratives.


  • The High Court acquitted the accused based on medical evidence contradicting the eye-witnesses’ version.
  • The doctor’s statement indicated that knife blows were post-mortem, falsifying the eye-witnesses’ claims.
  • The injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon were found to be post-mortem, while firearm injuries were antemortem.
  • The High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s judgement was upheld.
  • Two witnesses found a Tata Sumo vehicle parked outside the Hospital with the accused present.
  • Accused Sawinder Singh exhorted to kill Satinder Pal Singh, following which Sardul Singh inflicted a knife blow on him.
  • Accused Sukhdev Singh, Resham Singh, Sawinder Singh, and Swaran Singh, armed with rifles, fired at Satinder Pal Singh when he tried to run away.
  • Satinder Pal Singh was hit on the forehead, right ear, eye, and back of the head, causing him to fall down.
  • FIR was lodged by Prem Singh at the milk chilling centre due to the presence of police there.
  • The police arrived at the Hospital after the incident.
  • The incident was a result of a land dispute where accused Jagir Singh wanted to take possession of the complainant’s land.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited


  • The appellant argues that the FIR was filed promptly within two hours of the incident and all the accused were named, which eliminates the possibility of a fabricated story.
  • It is further contended that the doctor’s statement is inconsistent and indicates entry wounds in the injuries.
  • Several legal authorities were referenced in support of these contentions.

Also Read: Case of Eligibility for Disability Pension: Air Force Officer’s Retirement


  • Ocular evidence should be preferred over medical evidence in this case.
  • The medical evidence does not support the prosecution’s claims.
  • The prosecution witnesses have been discredited for various reasons.
  • The accused have not been linked to the evidence belonging to other persons.
  • Inconsistencies in the testimony of eyewitnesses raise doubts on the accuracy of their statements.
  • Lack of forensic evidence to prove the accused’s firearms were used in the incident.
  • The witness chose to report the incident at a milk chilling center instead of the police station immediately.
  • The doctor’s testimony contradicts the number of firearm injuries claimed by the eyewitnesses.
  • The lack of effort to get medical help for the deceased raises questions about the eyewitnesses’ actions.
  • The ownership of the Tata Sumo vehicle involved in the incident is not proven to belong to the accused.
  • Inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses’ statements about the sequence of events during the incident highlight discrepancies in their testimonies.
  • No reasonable explanation provided for why the witness chose to go to the milk chilling center instead of the hospital immediately after the incident.
  • The statement of the medical expert is accepted as the basis for the decision.
  • The prosecution did not request for the doctor to be declared a hostile witness.

Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court On Man Singh vs. State of India


  • The appeals have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • Any pending applications are also dismissed.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001560-001560 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *