LACHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE

LACHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE

Evidence was sufficient to corroborate the oral testimony of eye-witnesses. The discoveries made at the instance of Swaran Singh were admissible under section 27 as he made the initial pointing out which led to discovery. The conviction and sentence are upheld as there are no grounds for interference.

Parties
Appellant: Lachhman Singh; Appellant: Katha Singh; Appellant: Massa Singh; Appellant: Swaran Singh; Respondent: The State
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 March 1952
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Evidence Act Section 27, Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 149, 201, Corroboration of Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Evidence Act Section 27 Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 149, 201 Corroboration of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lachhman Singh

Appellant

Katha Singh

Appellant

Massa Singh

Appellant

Swaran Singh

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of discoveries made at the instance of several accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act
  2. 2 Sufficiency of circumstantial and direct evidence for conviction
  3. 3 Whether conviction under section 302 read with section 149 IPC could be altered to section 34 IPC in absence of charge

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence was sufficient to corroborate the oral testimony of eye-witnesses. The discoveries made at the instance of Swaran Singh were admissible under section 27 as he made the initial pointing out which led to discovery. The conviction and sentence are upheld as there are no grounds for interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of appellants upheld
  • Each party to bear their own costs in all courts