RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shared the common intention with the two co-accused to commit the murder or had done any act in furtherance of such common intention; accordingly the appellant was acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Parties
Appellant: RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH; Respondent: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Supreme Court Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Section 34 IPC (common Intention/vicarious Liability), Murder (section 302 Ipc), Grievous Hurt (section 324 Ipc), Simple Hurt (section 323 Ipc), Ocular Testimony, Benefit of Doubt
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code Section 34 IPC (common Intention/vicarious Liability) Murder (section 302 Ipc) Grievous Hurt (section 324 Ipc) Simple Hurt (section 323 Ipc) Ocular Testimony Benefit of Doubt

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH

Appellant

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Supreme Court Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant can be held liable under Section 34 IPC for the murder of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether the appellant shared the common intention with co-accused to commit the murder
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved specific overt acts by the appellant in furtherance of the common intention

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shared the common intention with the two co-accused to commit the murder or had done any act in furtherance of such common intention; accordingly the appellant was acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Delay condoned and leave granted
  • Appellant acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 IPC