In a pivotal legal case, the court’s thorough legal analysis played a crucial role in reaching a just decision. The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including forensic reports and eyewitness testimonies, to ensure a fair trial. This case serves as a notable example of how a sound legal analysis is essential in upholding justice and delivering the right verdict.
Facts
- Accused Pardeep was found guilty for firing a shot at Surender, resulting in his death.
- Weapons and projectiles recovered from the deceased were sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
- Witnesses like Rajbir Singh, Kaushalya, and Preeti provided consistent eye-witness accounts of the occurrence.
- The post mortem report indicated a penetrating lacerated wound on the deceased’s skull.
- Accused Pardeep’s statement led to the recovery of the firearm used in the crime.
- The Trial Court’s judgment on 18.03.2009 declared all accused as guilty of the charged offenses.
- Accused Ishwar, Krishana Devi, and Sandeep instigated accused Pardeep to shoot the deceased.
- Accused Pardeep was separately convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
- All accused filed a common appeal which was dismissed by the High Court.
- Trial Court convicted and sentenced all accused to life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.
- High Court found that Pardeep’s presence during Inquest Proceedings was not established.
- Krishana Devi filed Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- The appeals arise from the High Court’s judgment affirming the convictions and sentences of all the appellants.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- First Information Report filed promptly after the incident.
- High Court’s reasoning on the presence of accused Pardeep found sound and correct.
- Corroboration of the earliest witness versions.
- The High Court’s decision supported by the evidence presented.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The trajectory of the entry of the bullet is consistent with the deceased being shot from the roof of the house.
- The accused Pardeep fired the fatal shot from the roof of the house, as established by eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence.
- The weapon of offense recovered from accused-Pardeep was linked to the crime by the Forensic Science Laboratory report.
- Accused-Pardeep retrieved the firearm, went to the rooftop, and received crucial exhortation from accused-Sandeep there.
- Eyewitness statements are cogent and consistent with the initial version in the First Information Report.
- The parents exhorted accused-Pardeep and accused-Sandeep to teach a lesson to the deceased.
- The involvement of accused-Pardeep in the offense is unequivocal.
- The role of Ishwar and Krishana, parents of accused-Pardeep, was of initial exhortation in the crime.
- Accused-Pardeep and accused-Sandeep are found guilty based on the exhortations given before a shot was fired.
- Accused-Sandeep’s exhortation was considered more impactful as he had seen accused-Pardeep with the firearm on the rooftop.
- Accused Ishwar and accused Krishana Devi are given the benefit of doubt and their involvement is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The case of prosecution is proved against accused-Pardeep and accused-Sandeep while acquitted accused Ishwar and Krishana Devi.
- Criminal Appeal Nos.1613 and 1614 of 2018 by accused-Sandeep and Pardeep are dismissed while Criminal Appeal No.1615 of 2018 by accused Ishwar and Criminal Appeal from SLP (Crl.) No.8789 of 2014 by Krishana Devi are allowed.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Accused Ishwar and Krishna Devi to be released immediately
- Unless needed for custody in connection with any other offence
Case Title: SANDEEP Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2021 INSC 426)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001613-001613 / 2018
