IMPORTANT POINT
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 criminal act with a common intention.

JUDGMENT :

DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Sessions Case no.60/2015 for the offence U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code may kindly be quashed and set aside and appellants may kindly be acquitted from the alleged offence in the interest of justice.”

2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Sessions Case No.60/2015 (CIS No.78/2015) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Devi Lal & Anr.), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, are that on 17.04.2015, Bharatlal (complainant) presented, from Mortuary, Kothari General Hospital, Dungarpur, a written report before the Police Station officer, Dovda, to the effect that on 16.04.2015, the complainant was in General Hospital, Dungarpur, as his wife Ramila was admitted in the said hospital; his mother Champa had gone to his maternal uncle's house.

3.1. It was further stated that while the complainant’s father, namely, Mohan, was alone at home, at around 10:30 pm, accused-appellants, i.e. Devi Lal and Vasudev came there and owing to the old rivalry, attacked the complainant’s father. Upon hearing his father's cry outs, the complainant’s aunt i.e. Sushila w/o Harilal and Meera w/o Udalal, both came running to the house, and saw the accused-appellants beating the complainant’s father with sticks near the house. The attackers (accused-appellants) ran away after seeing Sushila and Meera; the same was also witnessed by Pannalal s/o Khemji. As a result of the said incident, the complainant’s father died on the spot, and his family members brought him to the Hospital at Dungarpur, whereupon, the concerned doctor declared the complainant’s father dead, and the body was kept in the mortuary.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered, and the investigation accordingly commenced. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, and owing to the nature of the offence, the case was committed to the learned Trial Court for conducting the trial.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants under the aforementioned provision of law, and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter.

6. During the course of trial, the evidence of 10 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 21 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; subsequently, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-appellants pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question; in defence, one witness was produced and 09 documents were exhibited.

7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2018, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellants.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that other than the eye witnesses P.W.5-Sushila Devi & P.W.6-Meera Devi, no one else is said to have seen the present accused-appellants attacking the deceased; further, the incident in question took place at night around 10:30 p.m. and the house of P.W. 5 was 300 metres away from the said place of incident; yet P.W.5 & P.W.6 were able to hear the shouts from the given distance and rushed to the place of incident. Furthermore, P