2019 Supreme(P&H) 1236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
Harpreet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2018, 083 of 2018, 1012 of 2018, 1151 of 2018
Decided On : 22-05-2019

The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants were guilty of murder, rioting, and possession of arms.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - COMMON OBJECT - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - SECTION 149 IPC - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - SECTION 25 ARMS ACT - POSSESSION OF ARMS - RECOVERY FROM OPEN PLACE - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 11 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS - SECTION 65-B EVIDENCE ACT - ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE - CERTIFICATION - SECTION 313 CRPC - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED - EXCULPATORY VALUE - SECTION 114 ILLUSTRATION (A) EVIDENCE ACT - ALIBI - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 166 EVIDENCE ACT - CONFESSION - SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF CONFESSION - SECTION 103 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF CONFESSION MADE TO POLICE OFFICER - SECTION 25 EVIDENCE ACT - CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 155(2) CRPC - POLICE OFFICER - POWER TO INVESTIGATE - SECTION 161 CRPC - STATEMENT TO POLICE OFFICER - RECORDING - SECTION 162 CRPC - CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER - RECORDING - SECTION 33 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO GOOD CHARACTER - SECTION 54 EVIDENCE ACT - ORAL EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE - SECTION 157 EVIDENCE ACT - HOSTILE WITNESS - CROSS-EXAMINATION - SECTION 145 EVIDENCE ACT - HEARSAY EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 32 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES - SECTION 21 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS SHOWING STATE OF MIND - SECTION 8 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OR INTRODUCE OTHER FACTS - SECTION 6 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS JUDICIALLY NOTICED - SECTION 45 EVIDENCE ACT - ORAL EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE - SECTION 35 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF ADMISSIONS - SECTION 22 EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS WHICH RAISE PRESUMPTION UNDER ANY OTHER LAW - SECTION 112 EVIDENCE ACT - PRESUMPTION AS TO FACT JUDICIALLY NOTICED - SECTION 113-A EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO FACT SPECIALLY EXCEPTED - SECTION 101 EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106 EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO PARTICULAR FACT.

Fact of the Case:

Gurjant Singh was attacked by a group of men armed with weapons. He was taken to the hospital, where he died from his injuries. The appellants were charged with murder, rioting, and possession of arms. They were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Gurjant Singh. The court also held that the appellants were in possession of arms and that they had used those arms to kill Gurjant Singh. The court further held that the appellants' confessions were admissible in evidence and that they corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Gurjant Singh. 3. Whether the appellants were in possession of arms and that they had used those arms to kill Gurjant Singh. 4. Whether the appellants' confessions were admissible in evidence. 5. Whether the appellants' confessions corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the following evidence: * The testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the appellants attack Gurjant Singh. * The appellants' confessions, which corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses. * The recovery of the murder weapons from the appellants. 2. The court held that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Gurjant Singh based on the following evidence: * The appellants were armed with weapons when they attacked Gurjant Singh. * The appellants attacked Gurjant Singh in a group. * The appellants continued to attack Gurjant Singh even after he was on the ground. 3. The court held that the appellants were in possession of arms and that they had used those arms to kill Gurjant Singh based on the following evidence: * The appellants were seen carrying weapons when they attacked Gurjant Singh. * The murder weapons were recovered from the appellants. * The appellants' confessions admitted to using the murder weapons to kill Gurjant Singh. 4. The court held that the appellants' confessions were admissible in evidence because: * The appellants were given a proper warning before they made their confessions. * The appellants made their confessions voluntarily. * The appellants' confessions were corroborated by other evidence.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants.