SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
Jagbir and Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 726 of 2003; Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2004; Criminal Appeal (S) No. 1566 & 1798 of 2003
Decided on : 24-04-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Dinesh Arora, Adv., Vinod Ghai, Adv., Kanika Ahuja, Adv., Sudhir Sharma, Adv., Ram Krishan Rana, Adv., Ashit Malik, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing common intention and shared liability in criminal actions, as well as the requirement of a pre-arranged plan to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 148, 302, 307, 149 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellants for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including murder, attempted murder, and rioting. The court analyzes the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also refers to legal principles related to common intention, shared liability, and the requirement of a pre-arranged plan in criminal actions.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in a dispute over agricultural land, which led to a series of violent incidents resulting in the murder of Aram Singh and attempted murder of Dalpat. The prosecution presented witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence to support their case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellants guilty of various offences, including murder and attempted murder, based on the evidence presented. The court also dismissed the petition for enhancement of sentence and compensation to the heirs of the deceased.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the guilt of the appellants in relation to the violent incidents, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the interpretation of legal provisions related to shared liability and common intention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles related to common intention, shared liability, and the requirement of a pre-arranged plan in criminal actions to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also referred to precedents to support its findings.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to be taken into custody immediately to undergo the remaining sentence imposed upon them. The petition for enhancement of sentence and compensation was also dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid three appeals and one revision petition, therefore, these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. These appeals and revision petition have been instituted against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Faridabad, in Sessions Case No.67 of 24.04.2002/16.03.2001. The appellants along with one Jaipal were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). Appellant Jagbir was also charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Appellants Jagbir, Sohan Pal and Ganga Ram have been convicted for committing murder of Aram Singh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants Jagbir, Ganga Ram, Sohan Pal, Tej Pal, Hari Ram and Kunwar Pal have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. Appellant Jagbir and Ganga Ram have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Appellant Sohan Pal, Kunwar Pal, Hari Ram and Tej Pal have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Co-accused Jaipal was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Dalpat was residing in the abadi. His brother Dalbir resided in the fields in village Dudhola. There was dispute regarding agricultural land between them and accused Jagbir, Ganga Ram, Sohan Pal and Jai Pal. Litigation was going on. On 26.10.2000, Diwali festival was being celebrated. At about 08.45 P.M., accused Jagbir, Ganga Ram, Sohan Pal and Jai Pal came to house of Dalpat. Accused Kunwar Pal and Hari Ram came on scooter. Dalbir was present with his brother at the house. Hari Ram and Kunwar Pal came to the gate of the house of Dalpat. Lalkara was raised. Sohan Pal was carrying iron rod. Ganga Ram was armed with a country made pistol. Jai Pal was armed with lathi. Jagbir was carrying a gun. Sohan Pal gave a blow with iron rod on the right wrist of Dalpat. Jagbir fired a shot at him which whizzed passed the neck and shoulder of Dalpat. Dalbir went inside the house of his brother. Dalpat tried to climb up stairs but was chased by the accused. Accused Tej Pal armed with a country made pistol was present on the other stairs. He blocked the passage. Dalpat was stopped by Tej Pal. Accused Ganga Ram fired a shot at him in his abdomen. He fell down and lost consciousness and regained it at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. On the same date, at about 09.30 P.M. while Diwali was being celebrated, Hari Ram complainant was present at the house of Aram Singh. Tirlok, Kartar and Risal Singh were present along with Aram Singh and were talking with each other. At about 09.45/10.00 P.M., Master Vijay Pal son of Ram Kishan came there and informed that in the house of Dalpat, accused Jagbir, Sohan Pal, Jai Pal and Ganga Ram had fired at Dalpat. Hari Ram and Aram Singh started walking towards the house of Dalpat. When they reached near the house of accused Kunwar Pal, they noticed accused Jagbir, Ganga Ram, Sohan Pal and Jai Pal coming from the opposite direction. Accused Ganga Ram


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top