IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL
Santosh Kumar S/o Balla alias Balram – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Chhawni – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
1. As all these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The present appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), in S.T. No. 144/1998, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently:-
| Appellant Name | Conviction | Sentence |
| Santosh Kumar | U/s 304 Part-II of IPC | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. |
| U/s 324/34 of IPC | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. | |
| In default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 1000/- additional imprisonment for 6 months. | ||
| Billu alias Ramswaroop | U/s 304 Part- II/34 of IPC | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. |
| U/s 324/34 of IPC | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. | |
| In default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 1000/- additional imprisonment for 6 months. | ||
| Harakhlal | U/s 304 Part- II/34 of IPC | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. |
| U/s 324/34 of IPC | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. | |
| In default of payment |
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab
Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka
Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
(1) Common intention – To attract applicability of Section 34, IPC, prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted ....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
Point of law: Conviction – Modified - witnesses are vital in nature and so also they are the natural witnesses even though they have been stated that they are related to each other and interested wit....
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC for a conviction, distinguishing it from common object under Section 149 IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.