Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds State Not Vicariously Liable for Police Constable’s Personal Act of Murder Arising From Private Dispute

Case Name: Zubedan and Another vs. Pritam Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: RSA-1316-1995
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed that the State of Punjab could not be held vicariously liable for the intentional, personal criminal act of a police constable who shot and killed a civilian during a private quarrel. The Court held that the incident arose from a purely personal dispute unrelated to discharge of official duties, and the mere use of a service weapon did not create State liability. The Court reaffirmed that vicarious liability of the State arises only when the act is committed in the course of employment or in furtherance of official duty, which was clearly not the case here.

Summary: The plaintiffs sought compensation for the death of their family member, who was shot by a police constable using his service sten gun during an altercation concerning repayment of a small personal debt. The constable was later convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court awarded compensation against the constable personally but dismissed the claim against the State. The first appellate court upheld this conclusion.

In second appeal, the appellants argued that because the constable was on duty and used an official weapon, the State should be held liable. The High Court rejected this proposition, holding that the motive behind the act was entirely personal, rooted in a private demand for repayment, and bore no connection—even remotely—with official employment. The Court noted that intentional criminal misconduct motivated by personal animosity or private transactions cannot be imputed to the State under the doctrine of vicarious liability. Reliance placed on precedents concerning negligent acts committed during official duty was found misplaced, as intentional murder for personal reasons falls outside the scope of official employment.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the findings of both lower courts were legally sound and based on settled principles of vicarious liability in public law. It reiterated that the State cannot be made to compensate for an employee’s deliberate private wrongdoing unconnected with service functions. The compensation decree against the individual wrongdoer remains intact.