Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ.
Yashwant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2012
Decided On : 04-07-2019
N.A. Naqvi, Advocate, Mukesh Meena, Advocate, Rekha Madnani, Advocate, Sanjay Mehrishi, Advocate
In order to establish common intention for the purpose of Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary to prove a distinct previous plan. Common intention may develop on the spot, as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302/34 IPC AND SECTION 4/25 ARMS ACT, 1959 - COMMON INTENTION - EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT - RELIABILITY - SUDDEN FIGHT - SECTION 325 IPC - APPLICABILITY - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for the murder of Gaind Singh. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts to establish the guilt of the appellants. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the eyewitnesses were unreliable, that there was no common intention to commit murder, and that the case should be treated as a sudden fight under Section 325 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants. It found that the eyewitnesses were reliable and that their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. The court also found that the appellants had shared a common intention to commit murder, as evidenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The court rejected the argument that the case should be treated as a sudden fight, finding that the evidence did not support this contention.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitnesses were reliable and their testimony could be relied upon. 2. Whether the appellants had shared a common intention to commit murder. 3. Whether the case should be treated as a sudden fight under Section 325 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the eyewitnesses were reliable and their testimony could be relied upon. It noted that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants. The court also found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. 2. The court held that the appellants had shared a common intention to commit murder. It noted that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and had inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased. The court also found that the appellants had fled the scene of the crime, which indicated a consciousness of guilt. 3. The court rejected the argument that the case should be treated as a sudden fight under Section 325 IPC. It found that the evidence did not support this contention, as the appellants had armed themselves with deadly weapons and had inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 151/2010 registered at Police Station Raipur, District Jhalawar for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Trial court vide judgment dated 18.05.2012 ordered the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC. Appellant No.1 Yashwant Singh was also convicted qua offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Act.
3. Vide order of an even date, appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life qua offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and fine of Rupees one thousand each. It was ordered that in default of payment, appellants would further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. Appellant No.1 Yashwant Singh was sentencecd to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year qua offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Act and fine of Rupees five hundered. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imperisonment for three months.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.09.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., complainant Ram Singh was sitting infront of his house. In the meantime, he heard the voice of his brother Gaind Singh. Complainant ran towards the spot and saw that Yashwant Singh, Madan Singh and Shodan Singh were inflicting injuries to his brother with farsi wali sticks. Two other persons were also standing there. On seeing them, all the assailants fled away from the spot. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered.
5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants.
6. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Act.
7. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case with a view to usurp their land. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that eyewitnesses had been falsely introduced in this case. Eye-witnesses could not have witnessed the occurrence from the spot where they were sitting. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the site plan Exhibit-P-5. Eye-witnesses had made material improvements in their statements while appearing before the trial court. All the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and had not suffered any injury. No blood stains were found on the clothes of the eye-witnesses. There was no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants had shared common intention to commit the murder of Gaind Singh. If the statements of the eye-witnesses were to be believed, even then, it could be said to be a case falling under Section 325 IPC. The appellants did not share any common intention and it could be said to be a case of sudden fight. Deceased had died on account of excessive bleeding. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramashish Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555 , wherein, it was held as under:-
"Coming to the question of applicability of section 34 for the murder of Tapeshwar, we find from the evidence of the three eye witnesses that while Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav caught hold of Tapeshwar, accused Samundar Yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav came with gandasa and gave blows on the head of Tapeshwar, as a result of which Tapeshwar died, section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The distinct feat
