NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

The conviction could not be sustained because the dying declaration relied upon by the courts was not proved to be reliable or credible in the circumstances; motive alone could not justify differing treatment of co-accused where the dying declaration and other evidence were nebulous and suspect; prosecution failed...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Narain Singh; Appellant: Hamir Singh; Respondent: State of Haryana; Informant/impleaded Party: Mal Chand Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions of the appellants set aside
Legal Topics
Dying Declaration, Motive, Homicide, Admissibility of Hearsay, Sections 302, 323, 364 and 34 IPC, Section 32 Evidence Act, Investigation Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Dying Declaration Motive Homicide Admissibility of Hearsay Sections 302, 323, 364 and 34 IPC Section 32 Evidence Act +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narain Singh

Appellant

Hamir Singh

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Mal Chand Sharma

Informant/impleaded Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction of appellants on basis of motive without proving the dying declaration is proper
  2. 2 Whether the dying declaration relied upon was admissible and reliable under Section 32 Evidence Act, 1872
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved offences of kidnapping and murder punishable under Sections 364 and 302 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction could not be sustained because the dying declaration relied upon by the courts was not proved to be reliable or credible in the circumstances; motive alone could not justify differing treatment of co-accused where the dying declaration and other evidence were nebulous and suspect; prosecution failed to establish kidnapping and murder under Sections 364 and 302 IPC as against the appellants, and therefore their convictions were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions of the appellants set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Convictions of appellants set aside