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) 454

2011 AIR(SC) 2501
Supreme Court of India
HARJIT SINGH BEDI & CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
Zahoor & Others
Versus
State of U.P.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2008
Date of Judgment : 26-04-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Naresh Bakshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Pradeep Misra, Advocate.

Headnote:A) INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.304, S.304(1), S.34:-Where the High Court reduced the conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 to that of Section 304Part I for lack of pre-mediation and the incident being result of sudden provocation in a quarrel, conviction against two of the appellant accused solely under Section 34 is not sustainable as it presupposes some common intention which requires a pre-planning. Hence the appeal allowed in so far as the two accused appellants are concerned. Even with regard to the other accused the sentence w2as reduced to 5 years instead of 10 years rigorous imprisonment as imposed. Appeals allowed accordingly.

Judgment :

In this appeal for the reasons mentioned hereunder, no detailed facts are necessary.

Suffice it to say that the appellants before us Zahoor, Subrati and Babu were brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having committed the

murder of Mahipal Singh @ Puttan on the 18th May, 1979. The Trial court convicted them under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court has by the impugned judgment held that the appellants were liable to conviction under Section 304 (I) of the IPC read with Section 34 as the matter related to a sudden quarrel without premeditation and that a fine of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice. The matter is before us after the grant of special leave at the instance of the accused. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the conviction ecorded by the High Court in so far as the appellant-Babu is concerned. However, in the light of the fact that the other two appellants i.e. Zahoor and Subrati have been brought in with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, their conviction and sentence cannot be maintained as the vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be fastened as Section 34 deals with common intention which pre-supposes some prior planning or pre-concept of minds even during the incident. Moreover, we find that Zahoor and Subrati had not caused any injury to the deceased or to anybody else and the only allegation against them that they had exhorted their co-accused to shoot at the deceased Puttan. In other words no overt act has been attributed to them. We also see from the record that the appellant-Babu was of tender age on the date of the incident. The incident happened in the year 1979 which would now make him about 60 years of age as of now. We quite appreciate that one man has been shot dead but in the overall picture we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from 10 to 5 years under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The appeal against Zahoor and Subrati is allowed in toto but insofar as the appellant-Babu is concerned, the appeal is dismissed with the reduction in the sentence. In the meantime, we direct that the appellants-Zahoor and Subrati, who are in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. The appellant-Babu be released on the completion of his sentence of 5 years. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
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 Back to top