Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Murder in Land Dispute, Rejects Defense Claims

The case of Gian Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh deals with the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Salig Ram, triggered by a property dispute. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony and the discrepancies in the defense’s version of events before upholding the High Court’s ruling and dismissing the appeal.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on September 14, 1992, when a heated verbal altercation took place between the deceased, Salig Ram, and the accused, Gian Chand, along with two other individuals, Mohar Lal and Ranjit, over a land dispute. The altercation escalated into a physical confrontation, during which Salig Ram was struck on the head with a danda (a wooden stick), leading to his death.

The complainant, Mohar Singh (PW-1), a member of the Gram Panchayat, was a witness to the incident, and he immediately reported it to the police. However, the defense raised the contention that Salig Ram’s death was accidental and that he fell from a height, but the prosecution argued that the death was a result of deliberate assault.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Gian Chand)

The appellant’s counsel argued the following points:

There were discrepancies in the eyewitness testimony, particularly with regard to who had struck the fatal blow.
The Trial Court’s acquittal was based on a well-reasoned assessment of the evidence, but the High Court had wrongly overturned this decision.
According to the appellant, the death was not caused by a danda blow but was a result of a fall from a height (danga), which was not properly considered by the prosecution.
The evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the appellant had the intent to kill.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Himachal Pradesh)

The State’s counsel, on the other hand, put forth the following counter-arguments:

Despite minor discrepancies in the eyewitness testimony, the core facts remained unchallenged: that Gian Chand, along with his co-accused, attacked Salig Ram with dandas, leading to his death.
The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony and indicated that the injuries were consistent with blunt-force trauma from a danda.
The defense’s claim of accidental death due to a fall was not supported by any medical evidence, and the post-mortem report confirmed the nature of the injuries as homicidal.
The Trial Court had erred in acquitting the appellant, and the High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was correct based on the available evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the eyewitness testimonies and the medical records, and made the following observations:

The discrepancies in the testimony of Mohar Singh (PW-1) were minor and did not affect the credibility of his overall account. His statement was consistent with the rest of the prosecution’s evidence.
The defense’s version of events, suggesting that the deceased died from a fall, lacked support from the medical evidence. The post-mortem report indicated injuries that were more consistent with a blunt force trauma.
The fact that the altercation was triggered by a land dispute and the violent nature of the attack indicated a clear intent to harm.
The Trial Court had erroneously relied on minor contradictions in the eyewitness testimony, which did not go to the root of the case. The High Court had rightly considered the overall facts and reversed the acquittal.

Key Judgment Excerpt

The Court made the following key remarks:

“The discrepancy in the statements made by PW-1 regarding the identity of the person who inflicted the fatal blow can be attributed to a minor mistake, and it does not undermine the credibility of his account. It is evident from the totality of the evidence that the appellant, along with his co-accused, acted with the intention to cause harm, leading to the death of the deceased.”

The Court further stated:

“In cases of grievous harm, especially involving blunt objects like dandas, the court must not lose sight of the broader context and the intent behind the act. The appellant’s actions were not accidental, and his intent to cause harm was clear from the circumstances.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of Gian Chand under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court ruled that:

The evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt.
The discrepancies in the eyewitness testimony were minor and did not affect the case.
The High Court had rightly overturned the acquittal and convicted the appellant based on the weight of the evidence.

The appellant’s sentence of four years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹1000/- with a default sentence of six months was upheld.

This ruling reaffirms the importance of the totality of evidence in criminal cases, emphasizing that minor contradictions in witness statements should not overshadow the broader facts of the case when the overall evidence points toward guilt.

Petitioner Name: Gian Chand.
Respondent Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 18-05-2023.

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

Download Judgment: gian-chand-vs-state-of-himachal-pr-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-05-2023.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 Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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