2009(2) Supreme 712
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel — Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.352 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-03-2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 –Scope and ambit of – The Section does not say “the common intention of all”, nor does it say “and intention common to all” – Under the provisions of Section 34 essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention – As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone – The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. (Para 8)
AIR 1993 SC 1899 — Relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
1. Accused 1 along with co accused A2 was prosecuted herein in the instant case for attempting to commit murder of deceased by forcibly administering to her an insecticide. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
2. Aggrieved, appellant has preferred present appeal. Plea of appellant that section 34 was not applicable to facts of case.
Findings of the Court :
For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. In the background of facts and circumstances of case trial court and High Court held justified in holding that appellant was guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.However considering nature of accusations, role played by appellant and the period of custodial sentence already undergone without remission, sentence was restricted to the period already undergone. Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal by accused no.2 is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, had recorded the judgment of conviction and had imposed sentence of five years for the first offence and no separate sentence was imposed for latter offence. Fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation was also imposed.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 26.11.1987 around 07:30 p.m. in village Kaanjan Ranchhod, Tal in Dist. Valsad, the appellant-accused no.1 called the complainant Kalaben Jagabhai Patel at Khadi to take money and also told her that he had some work with her. The accused no.2 also reached at the same place from where both the accused took the complainant in Vadi of Chamarbhai Revlabhai, where for about half an hour, they were talking and thereafter with an intention to kill the complainant they, forcibly made the complainant drink an insecticide used in Chilly Crop named as ‘Eka Laxys EC.25. The accused no. 2 caught hold of the complainant and thus, committed offence of an attempt to murder the complainant. The complainant was residing at Village ‘Kaanjan Ranchhod’ of Taluka Valsad along with her mother and brothers. The father of the complainant had expired about 6-7 years ago. She had studied upto 8th Standard. On 26.11.1987, the complainant had gone to Khadi for washing the clothes at about 12 noon. At that time, her aunt had also come to wash the clothes and after completing the work of washing clothes, she (the aunt) went away. Thereafter, around 2 noon, Satishbhai Nichhabhai and Ishwarbhai Khusalbhai, residents of the same Faliya as that of the complainant, had come to wash their clothes. The complainant, after getting her clothes dried around 3 O’clock, started to go to her house. On the way, the accused no.1 Jayantibhai Gulabbhai met her near his field and asked the complainant to come at Khadi in the evening to collect money. He (accused no.1) also told that he has some personal work with her. The complainant told him (accused no.1) that she will come in the evening and went to her home. Thereafter around 7:00 p.m., the complainant went to ‘Khadi’ where the accused no.1 was present. While she was talking with the accused no.1, the appellant-accused no.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai reached there. Thereafter, both the accused took the complainant to Vadi of Chamarbhai. There they talked for about an hour. Thereafter, all of a sudden accused No.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai caught hold of the complainant and accused No.1 Jayantibhai took out a bottle of poisonous medicine used as insecticide in chilly crop forcibly poured the same in the mouth of the complainant. As the complainant was caught hold of by the accused no.2 Chimanbhai Jagabhai, she could not shout. On medicine being administered to the complainant, she fainted and the accused ran away from the place. After sometime the complainant regained consciousness and she shouted for help. On hearing shouts of the complainant, her brother Nahhubhai, Ishwarbhai and Ukadbhai came running there and they brought the complainant to the house of Ishwar. There she was administered juice of Neem tree, where after the complainant vomited. The complainant was then admitted, in the hospital at Valsad. On the next day, Mamlatdar, Valsad, recorded the statement of the complainant. The real cause of the incident was the love affair between the complainant Kalaben and accused no.1 Jayantibhai as a result of which the complainant became pregnant. The accused Jayanatibhai advised the complainant and also gave some tablets to her to get the child aborted, but as it was not possible, the complainant asked the accused Jayantibhai to marry her. Initially, he agreed for the same, but then he turn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.