Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Surjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and background (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and intent (Para 10 , 11 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and motives (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. modification of sentence based on age and rehabilitation (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. final decision and order of the court (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Vashisth, J.)
Present appeal has been filed by appellant-Surjit Singh, then aged 42 years, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar/learned Trial Court, in Sessions Case No.47, dated 27.08.2003/18.09.2003, arising out of FIR No.61, dated 22.09.2002, under Sections 307 /34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khemkaran.
2. Appellant-Surjit Singh was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and was ordered to undergo following sentence:-
Under Section Sentence Fine In Default
307 IPC 7 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months R.I
Other co-accused, namely, Titar Singh and Sardool Singh were acquitted.
3. Appeal was admitted and recovery of fine was stayed vide order dated 13.09.2004 passed by this Court. Subsequently,
The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The appellate court upheld the convictions under IPC, emphasizing that immediate witness accounts validated the prosecution's case and moderated sentences considering time already served.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, including witness testimonies and FSL reports, to establish the guilt of the accused and the consideration of previous ju....
The court established that the prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, affirming convictions under lesser charges while acquitting on more severe charges due to insufficient evidence.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
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
