IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.Shekhawat, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.
Inder Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-978-DB-2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-01-2026
JUDGMENT :
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. Challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.10.2004, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (II), Jind, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 148/302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement (Ex.P.1)of Gurdev Singh son of Phagwa and the same has been reproduced below:-
I am resident of village Kakrod and do labour work. In the month of August, 1999 an altercation had taken place between us and the sons of Surju and Jogia, Balmiki, resident of Kakrod and both the parties were challaned. Since then sons of Surju and Jogia bore a grudge against us. Today, on 3.10.2000, at about 6.00 P.M., I. Daya Kishan son of Dhup Singh and Aakar son of On Parkash, Balmiki, resident of the village were talking while sitting on the chabutra of Hukmi son of Mansa Balmiki abutting the street when Darshan son of Inder, Balmiki, resident of village, due to this grudge, asked while hurling abuses as to why we were sitting in front of their houses. When we said asked him not to abuse, he went towards their houses saying that they would teach us a lesson for sitting there, and after some time, Darshan son of Inder and Dal Singh son of Surju armed with their guns, Inder son of Jogia armed with his gun, Kavala son of Rampal armed with a lathi came there with their common intention. Dal Singh son of Surju fired a shot from his gun aiming at us with intent to kill which hit Daya Kishan son of Dhupa. Inder son of Jogia fired a shot from his gun the pellets of which hit my body. In the meantime, Darshan son of Inder snatched the gun from the hand of his father and fired a shot after loading the gun. The pellets of that shot hit Onkar son of Om Parkash. we raised alarm of “Mar-Diya Mar-Diya”. On hearing the noise made by us my brother Mahipal, Rajpati wife of Nafe Singh and Krishana wife of Dhup Singh rushed there. In the meanwhile, Dal Singh again loaded the gun and fired but the pellets hit Rajpati who fell down at the spot and died due to the striking of the pellets. Kavala son of Ram Pal gave two lathi blows on the head of my brother Mahipal as a result of which Mahipal fell down at the spot and Kavala continued beating him. I tried to separate them after taking Kavala in my grip. In the meanwhile, Ram Pal son of Surju also came at the spot and started pelting brick-bats towards us. Krishana, wife of Dhup Singh received injuries due to the brick-bats. On hearing the report of firing and noise of fight, Virender son of Bhalle Ram, Nafe son of Mai Lal etc. and many other persons came to the spot and on seeing them the assailants ran towards their houses with their respective weapons. Thereafter, my nephew Laxman arranged for a TATA Sumo of Satish son of Balwant of our village. He took us to Civil Hospital, Narwana for treatment. Dal Singh, Inder, Darshan, Kavala and Ram Pal etc., attacked us with their common object to kill and committed the murder of Rajpati with a gun shot. They have also caused us gun shot injuries. Action be taken against them. Statement has been heard which is correct.Attested Sd/-(In English) SI/SHO, PS Uchana, dated 04.10.2000”.
3. After the registration of the FIR, usual investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, challan under Sections 302,307,323,34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act was presented against the appellants and co- accused. During the course of trial, Dal Singh, co-accused had died and the trial proceedings had abated against him. Even, Rampal co-accused was ordered to be acquitted by the Trial Court and only the present three appellants were ordered to be convicted by the trial Court.
4. After the committal, the trial Court finds a prima facie case under Sections 148,302,307
Assault and Murder – Conviction confirmed - Sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on sketch-map based on statements ma....
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The court found that an injury categorized under IPC Section 324 does not meet the criteria for attempted murder under Section 308 due to the lack of intent to endanger life.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.