94-year-old man walks free after 25-year legal battle: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court diluted his murder conviction

The accused, Swarn Singh, suspected that the victim was having an illicit relationship with his daughter and during a scuffle in December 2000, he killed the victim by causing injury using a knife.

“Keeping in view the old age of the appellant and the period undergone by him, the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him”, the order read.

The high court, in its January 21 order, held that the sentence imposed on the accused should be reduced to the period already served, considering his old age and the period he has undergone.

Findings

• There was a scuffle between the victim and the accused when the accused caused injury with a knife to the chest of the victim. Only one injury was caused without repetitions of blows, and the accused had neither taken undue advantage nor had acted cruelly or unusually.
• There is no doubt that the injury on the chest of the victim was caused with the help of a knife by Swaran Singh.
• The accused is around 94 years now, facing the agony of investigation, trial and appeal for more than 25 years.
• As per the custody certificate provided by the state, the accused has already undergone more than 6 years and 4 months of sentence.
• The arguments of the petitioner are considerable in the present case. The accused is found to be guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, which is culpable homicide with dilution of the offence of murder imposed on him.
• The trial court’s order is modified to the extent that the accused is ordered to be convicted of the offence of culpable homicide and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, without changing the amount of fine.

Argumnets

• The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Arnav Sood, argued that the eyewitnesses who narrated the incident were close relatives of the victim and were discrepant on material particulars of the case.
• It was also claimed that they made several improvements in their earlier version and should not have been relied upon by the trial court.
• Sood submitted that the essentials of Section 302 IPC (murder) are completely missing in the instant case, and rather, the accused is liable to be convicted for the commission of the offence under Section 304, Part I of IPC (culpable homicide).
• He further emphasised that the present case is of a single injury, and the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment, without any premeditation.
• On the contrary, the state’s counsel, additional advocate general Rahul Jindal, argued that the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased.
• Jundal further submitted that the matter was reported to the police without any delay and opposed the petitioner’s plea, pointing out that the prosecution had proved the case against him beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

Background

In December 2000, the accused, along with his son, met the victim, whom he suspected was having illicit relations with his daughter.

There was a scuffle between the victim and the accused, followed by an injury with a knife to the chest of the victim.

The trial court convicted Singh of the charges of murder, which was challenged in the present case.