Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Testimonies of Eye-Witnesses, When Unscathed By Cross-Examination, Necessitate Upholding Convictions" - Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Gang Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a definitive judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the life sentences of two men convicted for their roles in a deadly gang-related attack in Ludhiana, dismissing their appeals against the conviction handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge in October 2022.

The appellants, Guriqbal Singh @ Vicky Sekhon and Baljinder Singh @ Gogi, faced charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to rioting armed with deadly weapons and murder committed by an unlawful assembly, respectively.

The incident, which occurred on June 10, 2012, near Jalandhar Bye-pass, Ludhiana, involved a fatal assault using firearms and baseball bats, rooted in prior altercations among the involved parties. The trial culminated in the appellants being sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for murder and one year for rioting.

The judgment outlined a meticulous assessment of the evidence, particularly highlighting the reliability of eyewitness testimonies which placed the appellants at the crime scene armed and participating actively in the murder.

Eyewitness Reliability: The court emphasized the consistency and credibility of eyewitness accounts, noting, "Their testifications, unscathed by the ordeal of cross-examination, squarely attribute the crime to the appellants."

Forensic and Medical Corroboration: Autopsy findings corroborated the eyewitness accounts, establishing the cause of death as firearm injuries, aligning with the prosecution's narrative.

Motive and Participation: The bench rejected the defense's assertions on the absence of a direct motive for the appellants, pointing out that their presence at the crime scene and the actions described by witnesses indicated a clear intent to commit murder.

Conclusion of the Judgment: The High Court found no merit in the appeals, stating that the cross-examination failed to discredit the established accusations. It underscored the strength of eyewitness testimonies in the face of rigorous legal scrutiny, thereby affirming the lower court's decision.

Decision Date: April 29, 2024,

Guriqbal Singh @ Vicky Sekhon and Baljinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,

Latest Legal News