HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the first two accused (Hardeep Singh and Harjinder Singh) was justified on the basis of cogent eyewitness evidence establishing their joint participation in inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased with common intention. However, as the third accused,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Hardeep Singh; Appellant: Harjinder Singh; Appellant: Jaswinder Singh; Respondent: State of Haryana; Acquitted Accused: Gurcharan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Intention, Assessment of Eyewitness Testimony, Section 302/34 IPC, Section 304 Part II IPC
Criminal Law Murder Common Intention Assessment of Eyewitness Testimony Section 302/34 IPC Section 304 Part II IPC

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardeep Singh

Appellant

Harjinder Singh

Appellant

Jaswinder Singh

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Gurcharan Singh

Acquitted Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified against all accused on the facts and evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of related/partisan witnesses can be relied upon for conviction.
  3. 3 Determination of individual roles and applicability of Section 34 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the first two accused (Hardeep Singh and Harjinder Singh) was justified on the basis of cogent eyewitness evidence establishing their joint participation in inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased with common intention. However, as the third accused, Jaswinder Singh, only inflicted injuries on the arm and not on any vital part, his conviction was altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC, awarding a custodial sentence of eight years.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction of Hardeep Singh and Harjinder Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld; appeal dismissed as to them.
  • Conviction of Jaswinder Singh altered to Section 304 Part II IPC; custodial sentence of eight years awarded.