BALKAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1433 · Decided: 17-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R.1433 
BALKAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
.. 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.1208 and 302 rlw s.34 -
Murder- 14 accused-Allegations of conspiracy- Conviction c 
of A-10 for offence u/ss. 1208 and 302 read with s. 34 along 
with A-1 to A~4 - Trial Court, as well as the High Court, 
convicted A-10 based on circumslantial evidence -
Challenge to - Held: Basic ingredients to support the theory 
of conspiracy were totally lacking either in the form of material o 
evidence or otherwise- Nothing to suggest that A-10 held a 
conspiracy with A-1 to A-4 - On the other hand, specific case 
of the prosecution was that at the instance of A-14, the head 
conspirator, A-10 executed the plan - However, since A-14 
was found to have played no role in the whole case, no scope E 
to pin down A-10 alone to the theory of conspiracy- On facts, 
even going by the conclusions of the trial Court and the High 
Court, the a/legation of conspiracy levelled against AS to A9 
and A11 toA14 was ruled out-As far asA1 toA4 and A10 
were concerned, no iota of evidence to link them to any act F 
of conspiracy leave alone, the place, time and the nature of 
conspiracy- Once charge of conspiracy u/s. 1208 /PC was 
totally ruled out against A 10, he alone could not be charged 
and found guilty of that charge and consequently of the charge 
uls.302 read with s.34 /RC- Charge of conspiracy levelled G 
against A-10 u/s. 1208, 
1 IPC and the further charge under 
s.302 read with s.34, /PC not conclusively proved -
Conviction and sentence imposed on A-10 accordingly set 
aside. 
1433 
H 
1434 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Principles 
relating to conviction to be imposed based on circumstantial 
evidence, extricated. 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
(1984) 4 sec 116 : 1985 (1) SCR 88; Arvind 
Kumar Anuplal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra 
(2012) 11SCC172; 2012 (12) SCR 299 Shanti 
Devi w/o Shanker Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 
12 SCC 158: 2012 (9) SCR 226 -
referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
1985 (1) SCR 88 
referred to 
Para 7 
2012 (12) SCR·299 
referred to 
Para 8 
2012 (9) SCR 226 
referred to 
Para 8 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 606 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2007 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Appeal No. 293-DB of 1997. 
· 
E 
Sushil Kumar, Sr.Adv., Sanjay Jain.Adv. fortheAppellant. 
Madhurima Tatia, Syed Tanweer Ahmad and Mohd. 
Khairati (for B. Krishna Prasad) Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 
1. The present appeal was preferred by A-1 to A-4 in 
which A-10 is t.he Appellant was listed along with Criminal 
AP,peal Nos.1005 of 2010, 992 of 2010, 986 of 2010 and SLP 
(Crl.) No.270 of 2009. All the above appeals were taken up for 
G hearing together. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel 
appearing for the Appellant herein submitted that A-1 to A-4 
having served their sentence, nothing survived in their appeals 
and,.therefore, the said four appeals were dismissed as having 
become infructuous. The. present appeal filed by A-10 was, 
H 
BALKAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1435 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
therefore, heard. A-10 was convicted for the killing of one A 
Satinder Sekhon of Ambala in conspiracy with A-1 to A-4 for 
the offences under Section 1208 read with Section 302 of the 
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 
2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are 
that the deceased was the owner of a petrol pump which he B 
started on 08.03.1992. The occurrence took place on 
16.07.1994 at 11.30 a.m. On that day the deceased went to 
Dhillon Service Station, another petrol pump along with his 
brother Harinder Singh Sekhon (PW-22) and an employee by 
the name of Surjit Singh (PW-25). They travelled in a Maruti C 
Car bearing Registration No. HNA 7878. The deceased went 
to the said petrol pump, which was owned by Ravinder Singh 
Dhillon (PW-23) who was an eye witness to the occurrence for 
making payment for the mobil oil which he purchased from 
there. The deceased along with his brother was sitting inside D 
the cabin of the petrol pump and was conversing with PW-23. 
A-1 toA-4 i.e. Gurdev Singh, Sohan Singh, Naib Singh and 
Vakil Sing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.