1. Murder trial — Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC — Appeal against affirmation of life imprisonment. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 897
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Rameshwar and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2448 of 2009
Decided On : 21-08-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Nagendra Rai, Rajesh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rahul Kaushik, Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Shilpi Satyapriaya S., Siddharth Chakravorty, (in place of Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi), Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Nagendra Rai, Rajesh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rahul Kaushik, Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Shilpi Satyapriaya S., Siddharth Chakravorty, (in place of Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi), Advocates
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
When evidence against two accused are not identical, acquittal of one will help the other.
When common intention with other accused is established, conviction with the aid of section 34 cannot be interfered.
When evidence against two accused are not identical, acquittal of one will help the other.
When common intention with other accused is established, conviction with the aid of section 34 cannot be interfered.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial - Conviction - Evidence as against appellant and the co-accused not identical - Acquittal of co-accused with not help appellant. (Para 11)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Presence of appellant armed with rifle at the place of incident established - Common intention with another accused established - Held, appellant rightly convicted u/s 302 with the aid of section 34. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted u/s 302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine.
The High Court maintained the conviction and the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant 2 has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction under Section 34 IPC — Alleged lack of prior concert or meeting of minds — Contradictions in eye-witness testimonies. (Para 8 )
3. Reliability of FIR over court testimony when corroborated by other witnesses — Presence of armed accused acting in concert establishes common intention. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. To invoke Section 34 IPC, there must be common intention to commit a particular crime and the act must be committed in furtherance of that intention. (Para 12 )
5. Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed; appeal dismissed. (Para 13 )
6. What are the essential requirements to invoke Section 34 of the IPC?
To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of a common intention. This requires proving a common intention to commit a particular crime and that the crime was actually committed in furtherance of that intention. (Para 12 )
7. How does the court evaluate contradictions between a witness's statement in the FIR and their testimony in court?
The court may find the statement in the FIR (Dehati Nalishi) more reliable if it is corroborated by other eye-witnesses, even if contradictions exist with the testimony provided later in court. (Para 10 )
8. Can a person be convicted of murder under Section 34 IPC if the specific author of the fatal injury is not identified?
Yes, if the prosecution proves that the accused shared a common intention to commit the murder, the court can invoke Section 34 IPC, making it unnecessary to prove which specific individual caused the fatal injury. (Para 5 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25.06.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.275 of 1995 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of both the appellants (accused No.6 and 5) under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are:-
On 08.01.1984 at about 10:00 am, complainant-Subhadra (PW-1), wife of deceased Ram Autar was cooking food in her house and deceased Ram Autar was taking the meals. After taking meals, deceased went out to the courtyard of the house for drinking water. At that time, appellant No.1-Rameshwar with whom the deceased had rivalry came to the courtyard armed with a farsa (axe) and five other accused persons armed with rifles and danda were also standing at the door of one Kedar Seth, neighbour and amongst them, appellant No.2-Balaram was also there. Appellant No.1 exhorted others to kill the deceased Ram Autar and thereafter, appellant No.1 attacked the deceased with farsa. Deceased ran out of the courtyard. Four persons standing at the door of Kedar Seth caught hold of deceased. Appellant No.1-Rameshwar and accused No.1-Ram Bharosey came there and joined the other co-accused. At that time, Tejabai, mother of deceased came and laid down on Ram Autar in order to save him. Accused separated Tejabai and when Tejabai tried to catch hold of farsa from accused Rameshwar, she sustained injury near her ear. Case of prosecution is that accused Rameshwar and Ram Bharosey caught hold of deceased and accused Balaram fired gun shot at deceased Ram Autar which hit the back of deceased due to which deceased fell down sustaining the gun shot injury. Accused Rameshwar also is said to have taken the gun from accused No.3-Umacharan and fired at deceased Ram Autar due to which, deceased Ram Autar sustained injuries at the hands of accused Rameshwar also. When the villagers came, all the accused fled away from the spot. On the complaint lodged by PW-1-Subhadra, wife of deceased, FIR in Crime Case No.08/84 was registered under Sections 452, 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and under Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.
3. Dr. P.S. Tomar, PW-10 had conducted the post-mortem and found the following injuries on the dead body of deceased Ram Autar:-
(i) One circular hole of 1.5 cm on the back of deceased, situated in the middle of spinal cord;
(ii) Injury in the muscle;
(iii) Spinal bone of deceased was fractured;
(iv) Injury in lower blood vein.
Five pellets were found inside the spinal cord of deceased and all these pellets were sealed and handed over to Police. PW-10 issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P6) opining that deceased died of the injuries and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death. Appellant No.1-Rameshwar was arrested on 23.04.1984 and on being interrogated, he gave the statement which led to recovery of axe in the gonad under Ex.-P7-seizure memo. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and other four accused in the aforesaid offence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PW-1-Subhadra, wife of deceased, PW-2-Ram Narayan, father of deceased, PW-6-Katori Bai and PW-7-Ram Gopal and the neighbours all of whom have spoken about the occurrence and also about the overt act of the accused. Prosecution has also examined doctor who conducted autopsy and other official witnesses. Upon consideration of the oral evidence, the trial court held that the oral evidence is amply corroborated by the medical evidence and also the recovery of axe at the instance of appellant No.1-Rameshwar. The trial court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted appellant No.1-Rameshwar and appellant No.2-Balaram under Secti
