Supreme Court Ruling on Murder Conviction: Acquittal of Parents and Upheld Life Sentence for Shooter

The case of Sandeep vs. State of Haryana involved a tragic incident where a family dispute escalated into murder. The Supreme Court had to determine whether all the accused were equally liable for the crime or whether some could be granted the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that mere presence at a crime scene or verbal provocation is not enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC unless there is clear participation in the crime.

Case Background

The case stemmed from a long-standing land dispute between the families of the accused and the deceased. The primary accused, Pardeep, was charged with shooting Surender at the instigation of his brother, Sandeep, and his parents, Ishwar Singh and Krishana Devi. The dispute escalated when the deceased’s family placed construction material in a disputed street, leading to a violent altercation.

According to the FIR, registered on 13th April 2007 at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, Haryana, the victim’s family was threatened by the accused before Pardeep climbed onto the rooftop of his house and fired a fatal shot at Surender. The bullet struck Surender’s head, causing instant death. The accused then fled the scene.

The Sessions Court convicted all four accused under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Pardeep was additionally convicted under the Arms Act for illegal possession and use of a firearm. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants argued that the witness statements were unreliable and fabricated due to prior enmity.
“The alleged exhortation by Ishwar and Krishana Devi was vague and did not amount to participation in the crime,” their counsel contended.
Pardeep’s presence at the hospital after the shooting indicated that he had no intent to murder but was attempting to help the victim.
The weapon recovery was not properly documented, making it inadmissible as evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Haryana)

The prosecution maintained that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent and credible.
“The FIR was lodged promptly, and the medical report confirmed that Surender died due to a gunshot wound,” argued the State.
Ballistics evidence established that the recovered bullet was fired from Pardeep’s firearm.
The accused’s actions before and after the shooting, including their threats, showed a premeditated plan.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court considered the following key issues:

1. Was there sufficient evidence to convict all four accused?

The Court found that Pardeep’s role was clearly established as the shooter.
“The trajectory of the bullet and forensic evidence prove beyond doubt that Pardeep fired the fatal shot,” the judgment stated.

2. Did the exhortation by Ishwar and Krishana Devi amount to criminal liability?

The Court held that their words alone were insufficient to prove they shared a common intention to kill Surender.
“Exhortation without an overt act contributing to the crime does not attract Section 34 IPC,” the Court ruled.

3. Was the conviction of Sandeep justified?

The Court noted that Sandeep actively encouraged Pardeep before he fired the shot.
“Sandeep’s immediate incitement was a crucial factor in Pardeep’s decision to fire,” the judgment stated.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The conviction of Pardeep and Sandeep under Section 302 IPC is upheld, and they shall continue to serve life imprisonment.”
“The conviction of Ishwar Singh and Krishana Devi is set aside, and they are acquitted.”
“The appellants Pardeep and Sandeep shall remain in custody, while Ishwar Singh and Krishana Devi shall be released forthwith unless required in another case.”

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of participation in a crime. The Supreme Court distinguished between mere provocation and active instigation, ensuring that only those directly involved in the murder were held accountable.

Petitioner Name: Sandeep.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Sonepat, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 27-08-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sandeep-vs-state-of-haryana-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-08-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category