Virender vs. State of Haryana: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The case of Virender vs. State of Haryana is a significant ruling where the Supreme Court examined whether the conviction of an accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified. The Court ultimately set aside the conviction, highlighting the importance of proving common intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on the night of 6th and 7th November 1999, when the deceased, Krishan Kumar, was allegedly murdered by three accused: Hawa Singh, Satpal, and Virender (the appellant). The first informant, Suresh Kumar, who was the brother of the deceased, claimed that they had gone to their field for irrigation when Krishan Kumar went to check the water flow. At around 1:30 AM, the informant heard noises and saw Hawa Singh with an axe, Satpal with a sickle, and Virender with a lathi. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked Krishan Kumar, leading to his death.

The Trial Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, only Virender appealed to the Supreme Court, while the other two accused served their sentences and did not challenge their convictions.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether Virender shared a common intention with the other two accused to commit the murder.
Whether the evidence, particularly medical reports and eyewitness accounts, supported his conviction.
Whether the injuries attributed to Virender played any role in causing the death of Krishan Kumar.

Arguments by the Appellant (Virender)

The prosecution failed to establish that he had a motive for committing the crime.
There was no direct evidence proving that he had common intention to kill the deceased.
The injuries attributed to him were minor and not fatal.
The High Court and Trial Court wrongly inferred his participation without substantial evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Haryana)

The appellant was present at the scene with a lathi, which indicated his involvement.
The eyewitnesses corroborated his participation in the attack.
Since the other two accused were convicted, Virender should also be held responsible under Section 34 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and the testimonies of eyewitnesses.

The Court noted:

“The evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report disclose that the deceased had sustained seven injuries, out of which five were incised injuries caused by the axe and sickle. The two other injuries, an abrasion and a lacerated wound, were minor and could have resulted from a fall rather than an attack by a lathi.”

The Court found that the fatal injuries were caused by the axe and sickle, while Virender’s alleged attack with a lathi did not contribute to the death. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that common intention must be clearly established:

“In order to invoke Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must show that the act was done by one of the accused in furtherance of a common intention. If this is established, liability can be imposed on all. However, mere presence at the scene or minor participation is not sufficient to infer common intention.”

It also observed that Virender had no specific motive for the murder and was neither a close associate nor a relative of the other two accused. The Court noted:

“The prosecution has failed to establish any motive or common intention on the part of the appellant. The conviction appears to be based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.”

Final Decision

Virender’s conviction was set aside.
He was acquitted due to insufficient evidence proving common intention.
Since he was already on bail, no further legal action was required.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that common intention under Section 34 IPC must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Mere presence at the crime scene or minor participation does not automatically imply shared intention.
Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the involvement of each accused in a criminal act.
The ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between active and passive participation in a crime.

This judgment serves as an important precedent in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are not wrongfully convicted without substantial proof of their intent and involvement in the crime.

Petitioner Name: Virender.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice K. M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 16-12-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Virender vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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