LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. The State of Punjab and Anr. etc.

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 514Decided 15 May 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2007
Justice J. Chelameswar · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Background

In December 1988, a road-rage dispute over right of way in Patiala between two accused (one a well-known cricketer, Navjot Singh Sidhu) and the deceased, Gurnam Singh, ended with Gurnam Singh dying after being pulled from his car and struck. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the eyewitnesses untruthful and the medical cause of death unclear. The Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed this and convicted both men: the cricketer (A-1) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the second accused (A-2) with the aid of common intention.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside A-2's conviction entirely, holding there was no reliable evidence establishing his identity as the "clean shaven man" who was with A-1: the only link was testimony given seven years after the incident, with no test identification parade ever conducted. For A-1, the Court scrutinized the conflicting medical opinions (subdural haemorrhage versus sudden cardiac death) and found the High Court's conclusion that the head injury alone caused death was "pure conjecture," unsupported by evidence: the pathologist found no brain pathology at all. Since the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-1's single fist blow caused the death, his conviction for culpable homicide was also set aside; however, the Court found he had voluntarily caused hurt and convicted him instead under the lesser offence of Section 323 IPC, imposing only a fine of Rs.1,000 given the 30-year-old incident, absence of weapons, and lack of prior enmity.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for causing death requires the medical evidence to actually and reliably establish that the accused's specific act caused the death "beyond reasonable doubt", conflicting or inconclusive medical opinions cannot be resolved by guesswork, even when eyewitnesses are believed on other points.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case