HARI SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

HARI SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court held that rejection of a Special Leave Petition for co-accused does not preclude consideration of appeals by other appellants where leave has been granted, especially if evidence does not establish shared common intention or object. The convictions under sections 302 r/w 149, 148, and 323 r/w 149...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Singh; Appellant: Satbir; Appellant: Gulbir; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 April 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions modified
Legal Topics
Scope of Article 136, Special Leave Petitions, Criminal Liability Under Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 304 Part II, 325, 323, 148, 149, Doctrine of Stare Decisis
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Scope of Article 136 Special Leave Petitions Criminal Liability Under Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 304 Part Ii, 325, 323, 148, 149 Doctrine of Stare Decisis

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Singh

Appellant

Satbir

Appellant

Gulbir

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of Special Leave Petition of co-accused bars consideration of appeals of other appellants in the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the appellants shared common intention or common object to commit murder under IPC Sections 302/149
  3. 3 Interpretation of Article 136 of the Constitution regarding right to appeal and limits of special leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that rejection of a Special Leave Petition for co-accused does not preclude consideration of appeals by other appellants where leave has been granted, especially if evidence does not establish shared common intention or object. The convictions under sections 302 r/w 149, 148, and 323 r/w 149 IPC must be set aside where common intention/object is not proved. Conviction should be based on individual acts as proven.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions modified

Orders

  • Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC set aside for all appellants.
  • Conviction under Sections 148 and 323 read with 149 IPC set aside for all appellants.