Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Mere Presence at Crime Scene Not Enough to Prove Criminal Intent: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upheld Acquittal in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of respondents Gurpreet Kaur and another in a murder case, emphasizing that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish criminal intent or participation. The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger delivered the verdict on February 15, 2024.

The pivotal legal issue revolved around whether mere presence of the respondents at the place of occurrence, without any evidence of their active participation or shared common objective in the alleged offence, is sufficient to prove guilt. The court scrutinized the application of Section 149 of the IPC, which deals with every member of an unlawful assembly being guilty of the offence committed in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly.

The case stemmed from an incident on August 15, 2017, where Deepak Tiwari and Sukhwinder Singh were allegedly attacked by a group, resulting in Tiwari’s death. The respondents, Gurpreet Kaur and another, were part of the assembly but were reportedly empty-handed. The prosecution argued that their mere presence in the assembly implicated them under Section 149 of IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted them, leading to the State's appeal.

Justice Sudhir Singh, in his detailed judgment, highlighted the necessity of establishing a common object or knowledge among the members of an unlawful assembly to invoke Section 149. The court noted, "Mere presence in an assembly does not automatically classify a person as a member of an unlawful assembly." It was emphasized that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the acquitted accused shared any common objective to assault the deceased or PW-2.

Referring to the precedent set in Allauddin Mian Vs. State of Bihar, the court underscored the need for a nexus between the common object and the offence committed. The bench observed that while the respondents were present, no evidence suggested their active role or shared intention in the crime.

Upholding the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, stating that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements for convicting the respondents under Section 149. The bench concluded that there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court's findings.

Date of Decision: 15.02.2024

State of Punjab vs. Gurpreet Kaur & Anr.

Latest Legal News