SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 734

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Appellants: Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi
Vs.
Respondent: State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2005
Decided On: 04.08.2011

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Anand Padmanabhan, Prithvi Raj B.N. and G. Ramakrichna Prasad, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advs.

Headnote:A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.173, S.211, S.212, S.213, S.214, S.215, S.216, S.217, S.218, S.219, S.220, S.221, S.222, S.222(1), S.223, S.224, S.225, S.233, S.233(2), S.234, S.235, S.236, S.237, S.238, S.239, S.240, S.313, S.342, S.535, S.537, CRIMINAL LAW ACT : S.6(2), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENT ACT : S.537, EVIDENCE ACT : S.113(b), HINDU SUCCESSION ACT : S.3, INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.201, S.299, S.300, S.302, S.304, S.304(b), S.306, S.323, S.325, S.326, S.34, S.364, S.364(a), S.391, S.392, S.396, S.406, S.411, S.498(a):- The appellant was actually charged under the offence of decoity under

       Section 396 of IPC, but he was convicted of the offence under Section 302. Held Section396 and 302 are cognate offences and being of lesser offence the appellant suffered no prejudice and hence appeal dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC despite being charged under Section 396 IPC:

  • Cognate Offences Principle: The Supreme Court held that Section 396 (Dacoity with Murder) and Section 302 (Murder) are cognate offences. Since Section 396 incorporates the ingredients of murder (Section 302) by specific language, convicting the accused of the lesser grave offence (if the graver one is not proved) does not cause prejudice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • No Prejudice to the Accused: The Court ruled that the Appellant suffered no prejudice because the offence of murder is an integral part of the offence under Section 396. The essential ingredients of Section 302 were put to the accused during the trial, including through his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (!) (!) (!)
  • Evidence Established Murder: The prosecution successfully proved the commission of murder through circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the dead body from the sugarcane field at the Appellant's pointing out and the nature of injuries (severing of the trachea) found during the post-mortem. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Judicial Precedent: The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Shyam Behari v. State of U.P., which established that an accused charged under Section 396 can be convicted under Section 302 if the evidence proves the individual commission of murder, provided the accused had fair notice of the allegations. (!)
  • Statutory Provisions: The judgment analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, noting that Section 396 requires five or more persons committing dacoity where one commits murder, thereby making the elements of murder (Section 302) inherent in the charge. (!) (!) (!)
  • Appeal Dismissed: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld as lawful and without failure of justice. (!)

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Fine distinctions of law, if discerning, should normally be recognized and permitted to operate in their respective fields. With the development of criminal jurisprudence, the law has recognized the concept of cognate charges besides alternative charges. The differentiation between the offences from the same family in contradistinction to the offences falling in different categories have persuaded the courts to apply the principle of 'cognate offences' and punish the offender of a less grave offence because the offence of greater gravity has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This principle is to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a given case and notwithstanding the fact that no charge for such less grave offence had been framed against the offender. In the case in hand, we are concerned with a similar question which arises from the following facts:

All the five accused, namely, Rafiq Ahmad, Ahsan, Imamuddin, Arun Kumar and Yashwant Singh, according to the prosecution, in the intervening night of 30th September, 1977 and 1st October, 1977 committed dacoity in Ambassador Car No. UPS 7293 belonging to Rafiq Ahmad. While the car was going on the pucca road from Nehtaur to Dhampur within the jurisdiction of thana Nehtaur, the accused had committed the murder of Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Chandra @ Jagdish Babu and thereafter thrown his body in a sugarcane field of one Ikrar Ahmad situated in Village Kashmiri, thana Nehtaur with the intention of screening themselves from punishment for committing any offence. Shri Krishna Garg, uncle of the deceased was carrying on the wholesale business of sugar, Khandsari, flour, food grains etc. under the name of M/s. Badri Prasad Sunder Lal in Mohalla Bari Mandi, Dhampur (Bijnor). This firm had branches in the name of 'Garg Brothers'. The firm used to sell the above products on credit to the customers at Dhampur, Nagina, Sherkot, Sheohara, Haldaur and Nehtaur and the deceased, Jagdish Prasad, used to go to Nehtaur every Friday to realize money from them. On Friday, 30th September, 1977, also he left for Nehtaur to collect money. Ordinarily, he used to return home between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. with collections roughly up to ` 10,000/-. Though, Jagdish Prasad, on that day also had collected more than ` 8,000/- from the customers, but he did not return home that night. The next morning, Shri Krishna Garg sent his Munim, Ramesh Chandra to Nehtaur to enquire about Jagdish Prasad. The Munim returned and disclosed to Shri Krishna Garg the above facts. After arrival of the Munim, Shri Krishna Garg left Dhampur for Nehtaur along with Pyare Lal, Surendra Kumar, Har Kishan and Kamlesh to enquire about Jagdish Prasad. From the enquiries, it came to light that at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Jagdish Prasad had occupied a taxi, in which some persons were already sitting, at the Agency Chauraha, Nehtaur. The matter was reported and after making an entry in the GD on 1st October, 1977 at 2.30 p.m., SI K.L. Verma started investigation and interrogated a number of persons including Shri Krishna Garg and Pyare Lal. Thereafter, a case was registered under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 2.10.1977, the investigation was taken up by Station Officer (S.O.) Raj Pal Yadav and both Mr. Verma and Mr. Yadav left the police station together for investigation and reached P.S. Dhampur. At about 9.00 pm, accused Rafiq Ahmad was arrested by the police along with his taxi No. UPS 7293. His arrest led to recovery of the taxi which was made in presence of Pyare Lal and Surendra Kumar. During the course of the investigation, the accused Rafiq Ahmad also made a confessional statement before the investigating officer in presence of Surendra Kumar and Pyare Lal that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the sugarcane fields near village Kashmiri. The body of the deceased was, thus, recovered and identified by Pyare Lal. SI K.L Verma (PW9) prepared the in


























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top