Back
A. D. KOSHAL, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
Nidhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) The Court upheld the convictions and sentences of all three appellants on charges including murder under Section 302 IPC and unlawful use of firearms under Section 27 Arms Act. (!) (!) - (!) The High Court confirmed the four deaths and various injuries, and reduced Nidhan Singh’s death sentence to life imprisonment due to doubt whether he fired the fatal shot. (!) (!) - (!) The Court emphasized premeditation/plan in attacking Jagir Singh’s party and held Jagir Singh acted in self‑defense; no mitigating grounds excused the appellants’ acts. (!) (!) - (!) The Court rejected the argument that Shisha Singh’s death was necessarily due to a shot by Nidhan Singh and accepted the evidence showing multiple shooters from the appellants. (!) (!) - (!) The appellate decisions relied on eye-witness testimony and post‑occurrence evidence confirming the sequence of firing and injuries. (!) (!) - (!) The High Court’s and Sessions Court’s factual findings were reviewed and upheld; the death sentence for Nidhan Singh was reduced, others maintained. (!) - (!) The overall result: both appeals dismissed; judgments of the High Court confirming convictions and sentences were upheld. (!) - (!) The record shows the incident occurred in broad daylight with multiple fatalities and injuries, establishing a multi‑offender murder with common intent. (!) (!) - (!) The judgment addresses the evidentiary challenges to the cause of death and the source of fire, rejecting alternative explanations. (!) (!) - (!) Final disposition: Appeals dismissed; citations for the case: AIR 1981 SC 376. (!) (!)
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1977 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, for various offences arising out of an incident dated November 27, 1973, in which four persons were murdered. Appellant Nidhan Singh was convicted under Section 302 I. P, C. for the murder of Gurcharan Singh and was sentenced to death. Appellants Balwinder Singh and Harnam. Singh, who are the sons of Nidhan Singh, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for the murder of Charat Singh, Shisha Singh and- Hamir Kaur as also for the murder of Gurcharan Singh. All the appellants were further convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for causing injuries to Gian Singh and Didar Singh, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for unlawful use of firearms.
2. The three accused filed a common appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against their conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge referred the death sentence for confirmation to the High Court. The State of Punjab filed an appeal in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants Balwinder Singh and Harnam Sing
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
