IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Amir S/o. Muhammed Kannu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By the Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2006
Decided On : 13-06-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 38, 34, 341, 149 - Appeal - Punishment for wrongful restraint - Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences - Several persons in furtherance of common intention - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object - Whether there is a common intention shared by 2nd accused with 1st accused for convicting 2nd accused under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC - If common intention is proved, but there is no overt act attributed to the individual, Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability. (Para 17)
Finding of the Court :
Even then there is no admissible evidence to show that there was a common intention between the 1st and 2nd accused. But there is uniform version from PW2 and PW3 that the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained PW2 - There is no common intention or meeting of minds between the 1st and the 2nd accused - 2nd accused cannot be convicted under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. But there is strong evidence to show that the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained PW2 - Conviction imposed on the 2nd accused under section 341 IPC is perfectly justified - The trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and a fine under Section 341 read with 34 IPC on the 2nd accused. The incident in this case happened in the year 1999 - Now about 24 years have passed. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned judgment in this appeal will show that the 2nd accused has undergone pre trial detention for about 21 days - Substantive sentence imposed on the 2nd appellant/ 2nd accused can be reduced to a fine and a fine of Rs.500/-, which is the maximum that can be imposed under Section 341 IPC, on the 2nd appellant / 2nd accused with a default sentence.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.No.106/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Thodupuzha. The above case is charge-sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, against the appellants alleging offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 IPC.
2. When this appeal came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1st accused is no more. The learned counsel for the appellants also informed that, to his knowledge, the legal heirs of the 1st appellant/ 1st accused are not interested in proceeding with the appeal. Therefore the appeal against the 1st accused is abated as far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. This Court need to consider only the appeal filed by the 2nd appellant, who is the 2nd accused in this case. (hereafter, the appellants are mentioned as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively)
3. The prosecution case is that on 10.11.1999, at about 7 pm, accused Nos.1 and 2 were abusing PW2, who is the injured in this case, using foul language just outside the shop of PW7, who is the uncle of PW2. Then, PW2 left the shop and tried to enter his autorikshaw which was parked nearby. At that time, it is alleged that the 2nd accused caught hold of PW2 on his collar and consequently there was a scuffle. Then, the 1st accused, who had a knife hidden on his waist, quickly pulled it out and caused an incised injury on the left side of the chest of PW2. It is further alleged that the 1st accused tried to swing his knife again to cause a second injury, but this was blocked by PW2, and the knife deflected and struck the 2nd accused on his right thigh. It is also alleged that, thereafter, the accused fled from the scene. PW2 was then taken to a hospital where he was given first aid and was then taken to Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha, where he was examined at 9.25 pm on 10.11.1999. Ext.P1 First Information Statement was subsequently recorded and Ext.P10 FIR was registered at 1.00 am.
4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15. Exts.P1 to P21 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that both accused committed the offence under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more year. The accused were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 341 read with 34 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. If the fine is realised, there was a direction to pay the same to PW2 as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is filed.
5. Heard Adv. B. Renjith Marar, who is well assisted by Adv. Arun Poomulli. An argument note prepared by Adv. Arun Poomulli was also filed.
6. PW1 is the first informant in this case. Even though as per his First Information Statement, he saw the incident, he was declared hostile because he deposed before the Court that he had not seen the incident. Through PW1, Ext.P1 FI statement was marked. Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) are the portion of FI Statement marked through PW1. PW2 is the injured and he deposed about the incident in detail. PW3 is also an eye witness, who is the cousin brother of PW5. He also adduced evidence to support the case of PW2, the injured witness. PW4 was cited as an eye witness, but he turned hostile to the prosecution. The portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 is marked as Ext.P2. PW5 is the scene mahazar witness and Ext.P3 scene mahazar is marked through PW5. PW6 is a witness to Ext.P4 seizure mahazar by which the shirt and dhoti of the 2nd accused was recovered. But he turned hostile to the
Nathi Lal and Others v. State of U.P. & Anr.
M.K. v. M/s. Shan Finance Private Limited and Another
Rohtas and Another v. State of Haryana
Point of Law; even if one case is triable by Magistrate, there is no bar to get it tried along with the counter case triable by Court of Sessions.
The Court upheld convictions under IPC sections for attempted murder and assault, emphasizing the weight of eyewitness and medical testimony, and affirming the principle of common intention among mul....
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 can arise spontaneously during the commission of an act, and upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on th....
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.
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.