Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Acquits Two: Sandeep vs. State of Haryana (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 27 August 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 603
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a person be convicted of murder based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and corroborating evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a fatal shooting. The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and forensic reports, to determine the culpability of the accused. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around a fatal incident that occurred on April 13, 2007, in the village of Lehrara, Sonepat, Haryana. The dispute began due to a disagreement over construction material placed in a common street between the houses of the complainant, Rajbir Singh, and the accused, Ishwar Singh. The conflict escalated when Ishwar Singh, along with his wife Krishana, and sons Pardeep and Sandeep, allegedly started abusing Rajbir’s sister-in-law, Kaushalya. When Rajbir and his family tried to intervene, Ishwar and Krishana allegedly instructed their sons to “teach them a lesson” and to shoot them. Following this, Pardeep allegedly fired a shot from his room, which fatally injured Surender, Rajbir’s brother, who died on the spot.

Rajbir Singh lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, on the same day at 1:30 PM. The police investigation led to the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the firearm used in the crime. The post-mortem report confirmed that Surender died due to a gunshot wound. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found all the accused guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also convicted Pardeep under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court observed that the common intention was proven by the fact that Ishwar, Krishana Devi, and Sandeep had exhorted Pardeep, who then fired the fatal shot. Consequently, all accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, with Pardeep receiving an additional sentence under the Arms Act.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court specifically addressed and rejected the defense’s claim that Pardeep was present at the hospital, finding no evidence to support this assertion. Krishana Devi then approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was initially dismissed. Subsequently, the petitions of the other accused were granted leave to appeal, and Krishana Devi’s review petition was also considered along with these appeals.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for offences related to illegal possession of arms.

These provisions are central to determining the culpability of the accused. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is the primary charge for murder, while Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, allows for holding multiple individuals liable for a crime committed in furtherance of a common intention. Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, is relevant for the illegal possession and use of the firearm by Pardeep.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The eyewitness accounts were unreliable due to their parrot-like nature and the existing enmity between the two families.
• Pardeep’s presence at the hospital was established through the Inquest Report and the Post Mortem Report, which should be considered as evidence of his innocence.
• It is unlikely that Pardeep, if he were the assailant, would have taken the deceased to the hospital for medical attention.
• The disclosure statement of Pardeep and other relevant documents were attested by the prosecution witnesses, and no independent witnesses were involved in the recording of the statement or the recoveries.

Arguments by the State:

• The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged shortly after the incident, lending credibility to the prosecution’s version of events.
• The High Court’s reasoning for rejecting the claim about Pardeep’s presence at the hospital was sound and correct.
• The earliest version given by the witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence.
• The weapon of offence recovered at the instance of Pardeep was linked to the crime as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The appellants argued that the eyewitness testimonies were not credible due to their uniformity and the pre-existing animosity between the families. They also emphasized Pardeep’s alleged presence at the hospital as a sign of his innocence and questioned the lack of independent witnesses for the recovery of the weapon. Conversely, the state contended that the FIR’s promptness, the medical evidence, and the forensic report all supported the eyewitness accounts and the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was justified based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal of the accused.
3. Whether the presence of Pardeep at the hospital was established and if it has any bearing on the case.
4. Whether the corroborative evidence was sufficient to establish the involvement of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court did not mention any specific case laws or books in the judgment.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for offences related to illegal possession of arms.
• Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with reports of certain government scientific experts.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:* This was applied to determine the punishment for murder, and the court found that the actions of Pardeep and Sandeep met the criteria for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:* The court found that the actions of Pardeep and Sandeep were in furtherance of their common intention to harm the deceased, making them both liable under this section.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959:* This was applied to convict Pardeep for the illegal possession and use of the firearm.
• Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:* This was used to admit the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as evidence, which was crucial in linking the firearm to the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and cogent eyewitness testimonies, which were corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence. The court emphasized the importance of the FIR being lodged promptly after the incident. The court also highlighted the fact that the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with the version that the deceased was shot from the roof of the house. The court found that the exhortation of Sandeep was crucial in establishing his role in the crime. However, the court gave the benefit of doubt to Ishwar and Krishana Devi, as their role was limited to the initial exhortation and did not have a direct connection to the actual shooting.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based on a mix of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and forensic reports, accounted for 60% of the court’s consideration. The remaining 40% was based on legal considerations, such as the interpretation and application of Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the evidence in a step-by-step manner, starting with the incident, the eyewitness accounts, the medical and forensic evidence, and finally the specific exhortation of Sandeep. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of Pardeep and Sandeep, while the role of Ishwar and Krishana was limited to the initial exhortation, and they were acquitted.

The court stated, “In our view, the statements of the eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of the First Information Report. The trajectory of the entry of the bullet as found in the Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that the deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house.”

The court further stated, “Considering the material on record including the eyewitness’s account as well as the corroborative pieces of material, it is firmly established that the accused Pardeep fired the fatal shot from the roof of the house. The involvement of accused-Pardeep is thus beyond any doubt.”

Regarding the role of Sandeep, the court observed, “Thus, all three accused are said to have exhorted accused-Pardeep but the exhortation given by accused-Sandeep was immediately before the shot was fired and of a greater impact in as much as he had seen accused-Pardeep at the rooftop along with the firearm and then made the exhortation.”

The court rejected the defence arguments regarding Pardeep’s presence at the hospital, stating that there was no evidence to support this claim. The court also found that the other arguments made by the appellants were not sufficient to overturn the conviction.

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimonies, when consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
• The prompt lodging of an FIR can lend credibility to the prosecution’s version of events.
• Exhortation can be considered a form of abetment, especially when it is directly linked to the commission of the crime.
• The court will scrutinize the evidence carefully and will not accept weak or unsubstantiated arguments.
• The benefit of doubt will be given to an accused where the evidence is not sufficient to establish their direct involvement in the crime.

This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent evidence and the role of exhortation in establishing criminal liability. It also highlights the court’s reliance on both factual and legal aspects in determining the outcome of a case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that accused Ishwar and Krishana Devi be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the conviction of an accused can be upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and forensic reports, especially when corroborated by a prompt FIR. The specific exhortation of an accused immediately before the commission of the crime can also establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pardeep and Sandeep for murder and under the Arms Act, based on the consistent eyewitness testimonies, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and the specific exhortation by Sandeep. However, the court acquitted Ishwar and Krishana Devi, giving them the benefit of doubt due to their limited role in the crime. This judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the application of legal principles in criminal cases.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Law; Murder; Abetment; Eyewitness Testimony; Forensic Evidence; Arms Act, 1959

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sandeep vs. State of Haryana case?

A: The main issue was whether the accused persons were rightly convicted for murder and under the Arms Act, based on the evidence presented.

Q: What was the role of each accused in the case?

A: Pardeep was the one who fired the fatal shot. Sandeep was found guilty for exhorting Pardeep immediately before the shooting. Ishwar and Krishana Devi were initially accused of exhortation, but were acquitted due to insufficient evidence of direct involvement.

Q: What evidence did the court rely on to convict Pardeep and Sandeep?

A: The court relied on the consistent eyewitness testimonies, the medical evidence, the forensic report linking the weapon to the crime, and the specific exhortation by Sandeep.

Q: Why were Ishwar and Krishana Devi acquitted?

A: Ishwar and Krishana Devi were acquitted because their role was limited to the initial exhortation, and there was no direct evidence linking them to the actual shooting.

Q: What is the significance of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in this case?

A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was used to hold Sandeep liable for the murder because his exhortation was considered an act done in furtherance of the common intention to harm the deceased.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and forensic reports in criminal cases. It also highlights the significance of exhortation in establishing criminal liability.