STATE OF HARYANA versus SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.

STATE OF HARYANA versus SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.

The convictions and sentences of the six accused were affirmed because the prosecution established an unlawful assembly with a common object/intention to kill as shown by reliable eyewitness testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 corroborated by medical and documentary evidence (30 and 33 injuries and brutal nature of assault); the High Court's acquittal of three accused on plea of alibi was not interfered with because the State failed to show the acquittal was perverse or palpably erroneous under the principles governing appellate interference under Article 136.

Parties
Appellant: State of Haryana; Respondents: Shakuntla and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Assembly, Common Intention, Acquittal on Appeal, Alibi, Credibility of Interested Witness, Section 149 IPC, Article 136 Constitution
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Murder Unlawful Assembly Common Intention Acquittal on Appeal Alibi +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Haryana

Appellant

Shakuntla and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction under Sections 302, 325, 148 read with 149 IPC was sustainable
  2. 2 Whether a common object or common intention to cause death existed among the accused
  3. 3 Whether the testimony of related/interested witnesses (PW-4, PW-5) was admissible and reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions and sentences of the six accused were affirmed because the prosecution established an unlawful assembly with a common object/intention to kill as shown by reliable eyewitness testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 corroborated by medical and documentary evidence (30 and 33 injuries and brutal nature of assault); the High Court's acquittal of three accused on plea of alibi was not interfered with because the State failed to show the acquittal was perverse or palpably erroneous under the principles governing appellate interference under Article 136.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences of the six accused as affirmed by the High Court are upheld
  • Acquittal of three accused by the High Court is not interfered with