Back
Clarifies Requires For
Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra
have clarified that to attract under , a co-accused's participation must have a
"
with the offence in question."
The division bench made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal and affirming the life conviction of Jabir, the sole surviving appellant in a 1985 murder case from Bijnor.
Timeline of a Deadly Assault in Bijnor
The case dates back to . According to the prosecution, the three appellants – Asgar, Jabir, and another co-accused (both since deceased) – entered the enclosure where Mamman Hussain and his son Zahid were preparing to cut fodder. Armed with a lathi and tabals (a type of sharp-edged weapon), the accused assaulted Mamman, Zahid, and Sharifan (Mamman's wife) when she intervened. Mamman sustained four incised wounds, including one that exposed his intestines, and a lacerated scalp wound. He succumbed to his injuries five days later on .
The trial court convicted all three under (murder), (attempt to murder), and (voluntarily causing hurt). During the appeal, only appellant No. 2, Jabir, remained alive; the appeal abated for the other two.
Arguments on Witness Credibility and Missing Links
Counsel for Jabir attacked the prosecution case on three main grounds. First, they pointed to an inconsistency in the testimony of Zahid (PW-1) , who initially stated he took the deceased to the police station but later corrected it to the hospital. Second, the prosecution had not examined Ahsan , Jahri , and Bashir – persons named in the FIR as eyewitnesses. Since Ahsan was allegedly the person with whom Ashraf's wife had eloped—forming the motive for the assault—his non-examination, the defence argued, fatally weakened the case. Third, they contended that the prosecution had failed to prove motive because Ashraf's wife had returned home and no complaint was ever lodged.
The State, represented by , countered that the injured eyewitnesses (Zahid and Sharifan) were natural and credible, and that did not undermine their testimony. The non-examination of other witnesses, the State argued, was not fatal to a case built on direct, reliable evidence.
Court's Reasoning: , Functional Participation
The High Court rejected the defence challenges systematically. On witness credibility, the bench held that
"
, variations in narration, errors in estimating time or sequence and omissions which do not affect the core of the prosecution case ordinarily do not justify rejection of otherwise credible testimony."
It found the inconsistency about taking the deceased to the police station or hospital
"immaterial"
, particularly since the medical examination occurred promptly and was supported by a police constable.
On the non-examination of Ahsan, the court observed that an is not automatically drawn; the court must first assess whether the evidence already on record is trustworthy. Since
Zahid and Sharifan—both injured—convincingly described the assault
, the testimony of Ahsan would have been merely cumulative.
"Non-examination of a
is not by itself a ground for discarding evidence which is otherwise natural, trustworthy and convincing,"
the judgment noted.
Addressing motive, the bench clarified that
"where there is
connecting the accused with the occurrence, absence or weakness of motive ordinarily loses much of its significance."
It added that even without the elopement story, the prosecution had established that a heated exchange occurred between the parties on the morning of the incident, followed by a threat.
The Core Legal Principle: for
The most significant part of the judgment concerns the interpretation of . The court explained that
"Section 34 requires participation in the commission of the offence charged. The mere fact that several persons participated in the same occurrence does not make each of them liable for every offence committed during it."
Participation must have a
with the specific offence for which is sought.
Applying this test, the bench found that Jabir had actively participated: he came along with the other accused, was armed with a
tabal
, and joined in the assault on Mamman and Zahid. When Sharifan intervened, she too was assaulted by one of them.
"The participation of all the appellants, including the surviving appellant no.2, was thus directly connected with the offences for which the appellants were charged,"
the court concluded.
Final Verdict: Conviction Affirmed, Surrender Ordered
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings.
"We are satisfied that the prosecution has established the guilt of appellant no. 2
,"
the judgment stated. The life sentence under , along with sentences under and , were upheld, with the direction that Jabir surrender before the trial court by
to serve the remainder of his sentence.
The ruling reinforces that while requires more than mere presence, active participation with a clear to the crime is sufficient to sustain a conviction for .
