Punjab and Haryana HC Upholds Conviction for Double Murder

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction in the double murder case, in which the convict who shot dead his mother-in-law and brother-in-law in 2012 was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur And Judge Sudeepti Sharma He said: “Failure to prove motive by the prosecution loses its force on the ground that while it may be necessary to prove motive in a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, no effective evidence adduced in relation thereto can be obtained, especially when reliable eyewitness accounts of eyewitnesses to the immediate criminal event are given.” .”

The court considers that the failure to prove motive by the prosecution is “immaterial” as the present case relies on the credible eyewitness testimony of the deceased’s daughter and sister.

Bhupinder Singh filed an appeal challenging the conviction passed by the court in which he was found guilty of murdering his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1954.

Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the eyewitness had admitted that only one gunshot was heard at Surinder Kaur but the post-mortem report mentioned 3 gunshots and the eyewitness was not an independent witness and was only introduced to him by the prosecution. strengthen the case.

He added that there was no motive for the murder and the bullets recovered from Lovepreet Singh’s body were not sent to the concerned FSL.

After considering the submissions, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the prosecution case was doubtful as the bullet recovered from the body of deceased Lovepreet Singh was not sent for examinations along with the firearm from which it was fired.

The court said the allegation was frivolous because of the “vivid and credible visual depiction presented of the criminal event, especially when it was irrefutably stated that the firearm was where the bullets were fired.”

The court noted that the eyewitness testimony of the defendant’s wife was confirmed by the seized bullets as well as the disclosure statement and recovery note.

Further, the Court held that the amount of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,000 on the accused-appellant for the commission of crimes under Articles 25 and 27 of the Arms Law is extremely minimal and needs to be increased.

Therefore, it increased the compensation to Rs 50,000 each and dismissed the objection filed by the defendant stating that such compensation was devoid of any merit.

Powered by Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate

for appellant (in CRA-D-1311-DB-2013) and respondent No. for 2 (in CRA-D-1365-DB-2013).

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the Complainant.

Title: Bhupinder Singh / State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order