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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D No. 1136 of 2022
Decided On : 01-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Neha Jain
For the Respondent: Pawan Girdhar

The conviction was upheld based on strong evidentiary links, including a confession and ballistic evidence, demonstrating the accused's culpability in murder and related firearms offences.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Arms Act - Sections 25 and 27 - Conviction for murder and attempted murder - The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and concurrent sentences for arm-related offences - Co-accused were acquitted - The court found sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime through a confession, witness testimony, ballistic reports, and recovery of the murder weapon. (Paras 1-50)

(B) Evidentiary principles - The validity of a witness's previous statement vs. hearsay; it's established that signed documents hold more evidentiary weight than oral statements made in court - The accused's disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of the murder weapon, is deemed critical. (Paras 18-19, 27-36)

(C) Sentencing - The court reaffirmed that sentencing should reflect the severity of the crime while considering the circumstances surrounding the conviction. (Paras 30-41)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering Sunny using a firearm following a planned ambush, which was premeditated to avenge his wife's death.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence, highlighting faults in the defendant's arguments regarding evidence misappreciation.

Issues: The main questions were the reliability of witness testimonies and the evidentiary weight of the accused's statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confession and forensic evidence provided solid grounds for conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in witness accounts that did not undermine the prosecution's case.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing of appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. investigation and trial process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments by the parties. (Para 11 , 12)
4. witness accounts and their reliability. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18)
5. principles governing disclosure statements. (Para 22 , 24 , 27)
6. evidentiary value of confession and recovery. (Para 37 , 48)
7. final judgment and execution of sentence. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 31.10.2022, upon Sessions Case No. 03 of 2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused-appellant Suresh. However, the co-accused namely, Mandeep and Parvesh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order dated 4.11.2022, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict in the hereafter extracted manner:

Name of the accusedOffence under SectionPeriod of sentence (RI)Fine imposedPeriod of sentence in default of payment of fine
Suresh302 IPCLife imprisonmentRs. 25,000/-Nine months (SI)
25 Arms ActTwo yearsRs. 25,000/-Four months (SI)
27 Arms ActFive yearsRs. 5,000/-Six months (SI)

3. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently However, the period of detention undergone by the accused-appellant, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.

Factual Background

4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex PY is assigned. As per the prosecution case, on 2.9.2017, on receipt of an information from FIMS Hospital, Sonipat regarding arrival of dead body of Sunny son of Satpal in the hospital, ASI Ranbir along with HC Kuldeep, HC Veerpal and HC Chand reached the hospital concerned where complainant Room Ram met them, and got recorded his statement (Ex. PW-6/A), which becomes extracted hereinafter:

“That he is resident of village Busana. He along with his brother-in-law (sala) Sunny son of Satpal and Sunil son of Virender, residents of village Butana working for a contractor at Indira Gandhi Airport Cargo. On 02.09.2017, they were going for their duty in Sunny's car bearing registration No. DL-2FE-0058 make Santro of black colour, which was driven by Sunny and complainant and Sunil were sitting on the rear seat of the car. Complainant was sitting behind Sunny and Sunil was sitting behind conductor seat. At about 08.00 p.m. when they reached near Kali Mandir, Bahalgarh Road, in the meanwhile, a car bearing registration No. DL-2CV-9288 of red colour make Maruti 800 obstructed their way. Sunny stopped the car and three young boys alighted from the red car and came towards their car. Sunny told him that it was Suresh son of Ved Singh and his wife had died in an accident with his car. In the meantime, one of the boy smashed the wind screen of their santro car with an iron rod. Suresh pointed a pistol on the right side temple of Sunny and fired three rounds. Sunny tried to stop him and in the process, fourth bullet hit him on the hand. The third boy fired at Sunny from the other side. Sunil got off the car and started running. One of the boys while firing followed him. Sunny died at the spot and he took him to FIMS Hospital where doctor declared him dead on arrival. He had concealed himself on the back seat to save himself from the gun shots. All the three boys along with their weapons and car fled towards village Rathdhana. He prayed that appropriate action be taken against the accused.”

On the basis of the said statement, the appeal FIR was registered.

Investigation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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