Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 1683
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Banwari Lal Sharma, JJ.
Mohammed Ilias & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011
Decided On : 21-07-2015
For the Appellant:Biri Singh Sinsinwar Senior Counsel with Rajesh Choudhary, Advocates.
For the State: N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2010
For the Appellant:Pankaj Sharma on behalf of Deepak Asopa, Advocates.
For the State: N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor.
For the Complainant:Ashvin Garg, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the individual liability of the accused for specific offences, based on the evidence of the nature of injuries and the sequence of events.
Headnote:
Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 302, 148, 323/149, 324/149 IPC - The judgment discusses the occurrence of a murder and the subsequent injuries suffered by the accused and the witnesses. It analyzes the evidence and concludes that only one accused had the intention to cause murder, while the others did not share the common intention. The court affirms the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and acquits them for the remaining offences under Section 148, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were alleged to have constituted an unlawful assembly and caused the murder of a person, along with simple injuries to several others. The trial court convicted the accused for various offences under IPC and Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that only one accused had the intention to cause murder, while the others did not share the common intention. It affirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them for the remaining offences under Section 148, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the individual liability of each accused for the specific offences they were charged with, considering the nature of injuries and the sequence of events.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only one accused had the intention to cause murder, and the others did not share the common intention. It concluded that the accused were individually liable for the specific offences based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them for the remaining offences under Section 148, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC. It also determined the individual liability of each accused for the specific offences they were charged with.
| | | |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. |
| 148 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| 323/149 IPC | Six months S.I. | Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. |
| 324/149 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| | | |
| 302/149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. |
| 148 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| 323/149 IPC | Six months S.I. | Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. |
| 324/149 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| | | |
| 302/149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. |
| 148 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| 323/149 IPC | Six months S.I. | Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. |
| 324/149 IPC | Two years R.I. | Fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo two months R.I. |
| 4/25 Arms Act | One months S.I. | Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. |
