Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Ramesh Alias Dapinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.2645 of 2021) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)D.No.26322 of 2019)
Decided On : 22-03-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 – Murder and hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Testimonies of two witnesses, who had accompanied deceased, were not quite consistent – Medical evidence fairly consistent with prosecution case – Ocular testimony in support of prosecution is only by way of testimony of original informant – That witness did not attribute any specific overt act to appellant insofar assault on deceased was concerned; nor was appellant stated to be armed with any weapon – It was not even the case that appellant had exhorted or had facilitated, in any manner, assault on deceased – Only attribution to appellant was regarding common or collective act where three persons got down from motorcycle and started assaulting with Danda and fist blows – Appellant was not attributed presence and participation in such quarrel or scuffle – It cannot be said with certainty that appellant shared common intention with co-accused to commit murder of deceased or that appellant had done something in furtherance of common intention of all – Giving him benefit of doubt, appellant absolved of liability under Section 34 of IPC insofar as charges under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC are concerned – However, appellant found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC – Affirming such conviction and sentence, benefit of doubt granted to appellant and acquitted of all other charges. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2016. Appellant-original accused No.3 was tried along with two others in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Himachal Pradesh, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
If appellant has undergone the sentence in respect of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he be set at liberty, unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2016.
3. The appellant – original accused No.3 was tried along with two others in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Himachal Pradesh, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’, for short).
4. The basic facts leading to the aforementioned Trial, as stated by PW1- Sukhwinder Singh, the original informant, were as under:-
5. Kulwinder Singh alias Babbi, whose presence was referred to by PW1- Sukhwinder Singh, was examined as PW7. But this witness did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. It was asserted by this witness as under:-
Common intention is a matter of inference from attending circumstances and role of accused in commission of offence.
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The testimony of injured witnesses holds significant weight in establishing guilt, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, reinforcing principles of common intention in joint criminal acts.
For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of common intention and active participation; mere presence is insufficient.
The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, and common intention among co-accused can be inferred from their conduct during the commission of the crime.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing common intention and individual participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the need for reliable evidence to prove the a....
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
