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

2019 Supreme(SC) 163

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2007 of 2008
Decided On : 15-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR Mr. Shashwat Goel, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Vishakha, Adv. Ms. Parul Luthra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Common intention u/s 34 and common object u/s 149 distinguished.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 and 34 – Both sections dealing with constructive criminal liability – Common intention is essential constituent of the vicarious criminal liability u/s 34 – The provisions may be similar in some cases and may overlap in some other cases – Common intention, basis of Section 34, while u/s 149 common object is the basis of the composition of an unlawful assembly – Common intention denotes action-in-concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan meaning a prior meeting of minds – Common intention is different from the same intention or similar intention – A case should be determined on facts and circumstances of that case only – Mere similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine the conclusion of the fact in another. (Para 14, 16)

       (1998) 8 SCC 555; AIR 1963 SC 174; I.L.R. (1945) IndAp 148 – Relied upon

       (2004) 11 SCC 305 – Referred

       (2013) 6 SCC 675 – Distinguished

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w section 34 – Allegation that appellants held the deceased and other accused knife and gupti blows – It cannot be said that the appellants shared common intention with other accused – First complaint by accused 1 for the same incident mentioning only accused 2 – On the other hand, compliant by wife of deceased lodged later intentionally implicating present appellants – All prosecution witnesses interested witnesses – No independent witness though incident occurring in a multistoried building – The motive of implication being a long standing civil dispute between the parties – Section 34 held not applicable and conviction u/s 302 with the aid of section 34 not sustainable. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants were convicted u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

       The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. The appellants are assailing their conviction under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment.

2. On dismissal of appeal upholding conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, accused nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged their conviction and sentence and accused nos. 3 and 4 (present appellants) have approached this Court assailing the said judgment and conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:

According to the case of the prosecution, accused no.1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain was having a long pending civil dispute about his flat with the deceased Mohammad Shakil situated near to the scene of occurrence. On 18th August, 1997 at about 11.00 a.m., Mohammad Shakil (deceased) had operated electric motor for supply of water in the common overhead tank situated on top of the building but at that time since water taps were kept open by accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain in his house, the water could not reach to the tank. The request of the deceased Mohammad Shakil to close the tap was not acceptable to accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain, due to which altercation took place between accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain and deceased Mohammed Shakil and both started shouting at each other. According to the prosecution, after hearing hot altercation, members of the complainant party (Shamimbanu, Adilahmed, Zaidahmed) came there and started abusing the member of their family. At this stage accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain and accused no. 2 Shefakathusssain Sabdarhussain went into their house and brought a knife and gupti in their hand and accused nos. 3 & 4 (present appellants) caught hold of Mohammad Shakil (deceased) and accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain and accused no. 2 Shefakathussain Sabdarhussain gave a knife and gupti blow to deceased Mohammad Shakil (deceased) and accused no. 2 Shefakathussain Sabdarhussain also injured Adilahmed (PW2) who too was caught hold of by accused nos. 3 & 4 (present appellants) and thereafter they left the scene of occurrence, both Mohammad Shakil and Adilahmed (being severally injured) were taken to V.S. Hospital and on receiving telephonic message Mr. Makwana, Police Inspector rushed to the hospital where he came to know that Mohammad Shakil had succumbed to injuries and Adilahmed was admitted in the hospital for treatment and thereafter recorded the complaint of Shamimbanu (PW1), wife of deceased Mohammad Shakil at 2.00 p.m. and thereafter sent the same to Gaikwad Haveli Police Station for registration of offence. Thereafter, all the four accused were registered in C.R. No. 146/1996 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. It may be relevant to note that for the selfsame incident happened around 11.00 a.m. in the morning of 18th August, 1997, accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain also made a cross complaint that he was residing at House No. 521/4/5 in a small chawl (street) of Saudagar, in Jamalpur area and the present complainant party was living in front of his house and the families are known to each other. On 18th August, 1997 at eleven o’clock in the morning, he was in the bathroom and he had kept the tap on, as his house was to be cleaned. Mohammad Shakil (deceased) came at his house and told him to turn the tap of water off. Accused no. 1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain told to do the same after the cleaning work would finish as he was cleaning his house and not possible for him to off the tap. The members of the complaint party started using abusive language and attacked on him and becoming very excited. He also got excited and used abusive words, then three of them had beaten him with punch and kick and Mohammad Shakil (deceased) had beaten him by p



























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