“The Gallows Await Trigger-Happy Policemen” | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹15 Lakh Compensation For Point Blank Killing | Criticizes Shielding of Accused Officials
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the State of Punjab to pay compensation of ₹15,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks. The court held that the death of the petitioner’s son by police official was the result of excessive and unjustified force, and condemned the failure of the police authorities to register appropriate charges. The bench further directed that the cancellation report pending before the Magistrate be assessed in accordance with law, and permitted the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies.
The case arose from an incident dated 23 May 2013, when Arvinder Pal Singh alias Lovely, a 22-year-old man, was shot and killed by respondent No.5, Head Constable Prem Singh, allegedly without provocation while he was present inside a barber shop. According to the petitioner, who is the deceased’s mother, the shooting was deliberate and unprovoked, with no attempt made to arrest or warn the victim.
Subsequently, FIR No.87 dated 23 May 2013 was registered against the deceased under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, portraying him as the aggressor who attacked the police. However, the Post Mortem Report dated 24 May 2013 suggested that the deceased had died instantly after the gunshot injury, thereby contradicting the contents of the FIR.
On 12 March 2015, the High Court had ordered the registration of an FIR against the erring police officials and the transfer of both investigations—FIR No.87 and the one concerning the incident—to the Crime Branch. In response, FIR No.69 dated 2 April 2015 was registered under Section 304 IPC, not Section 302 IPC as directed.
The petitioner filed CRM-M-12183-2016 under Section 482 CrPC, seeking a fair investigation and compensation. Her plea included reference to violations of Section 46 CrPC, which outlines procedural safeguards against excessive force during arrests, and stated inconsistencies in the narrative presented by the police.
The respondents argued that the deceased was a proclaimed offender in two cases and a known miscreant. They claimed that he attacked respondent No.6 with a knife, prompting respondent No.5 to fire a single shot in self-defence aimed at the left arm, which allegedly entered the chest inadvertently. They pointed to the MLR of respondent No.6 and cited Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that the force used was within legal limits.
The Amicus Curiae contended that blackening and tattooing around the entry wound indicated a point-blank shot and questioned why no non-lethal part of the body was targeted. He submitted that the FIR against the officers was registered under Section 304 IPC in contradiction to the High Court’s earlier directive and argued that the case involved deliberate shielding of the accused by the police force.
The court recorded, “Arvinder Pal Singh alias Lovely a 22-year-old man was shot dead by respondent No.5, a police official. It is a matter of record that the injury on the deceased had a black ring around it, which clearly indicates that the bullet was shot from a very small, perhaps point blank distance.”
It stated, “That being the case, the narrative put forth by respondents No.5 and 6 seems rather untenable.” The court noted, “While it is their case that they warned the deceased multiple times before shooting at him, the bullet injuries are on his arm and chest.”
The bench recorded, “It is rather curious as to why, if it was at all required, did respondent No.5 not aim for the legs of the deceased.” The judgment observed, “The police officials form a part of a professional and trained force. As such, it can be reasonably assumed that they possess the ability to arrest a man, armed merely with a knife, without killing him.”
The court stated, “Allowing the act of respondent No.5 to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of the judge, jury and executioner.”
Quoting the Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, the bench noted, “We warn policemen that they will not be excused for committing murder in the name of 'encounter'... If a policeman is given an illegal order by any superior to do a fake 'encounter', it is his duty to refuse to carry out such illegal order, otherwise he will be charged for murder, and if found guilty sentenced to death.”
The court recorded, “The intention of the police authorities to shield their colleagues is rather conspicuous. The same is also buttressed by the fact that FIR No.69(supra) was registered against respondents No.5 and 6 under Section 304 of the IPC while it clearly should have been done under Section 302.”
On the petitioner’s continued legal pursuit, the court observed, “The petitioner is mother who has lost her 22-year-old son... Not only has she lost her young son, for the last 12 years, she has had to run from pillar to post to get the incident fairly investigated.”
After examining the entire record and hearing the submissions of the parties, the High Court allowed the petition and issued specific directions.
The court directed the State of Punjab to pay compensation of ₹15,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
It further instructed the jurisdictional Magistrate to evaluate the second cancellation report in accordance with the decision rendered by the Court in Pawan Kharbanda vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2025(1) Law Herald 456.
The petitioner was also granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies concerning her dissatisfaction with the investigation, noting that an FIR had already been registered pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated 12 March 2015 in CRM-M-24724-2013.
Additionally, the Court directed that a copy of the order be provided to the learned State counsel for compliance.
All pending miscellaneous applications were ordered to stand disposed of. Before concluding, the Court expressed its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab; Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
Case Title: Daljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:068484
Case Number: CRM-M-12183-2016 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
[Read/Download order]
