Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Surendra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 193 of 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Common Intention - Conviction under Sections 307/34 and 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the accused had come to the house of the informant armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the victims, resulting in injuries. The court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish common intention and upheld the conviction of one appellant while acquitting another.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 307/34 and 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the informant and his wife at their house. The prosecution's case was based on direct evidence from the injured eyewitnesses and the investigating officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the accused had assaulted the victims with deadly weapons, resulting in injuries. The court upheld the conviction of one appellant while acquitting another based on the lack of evidence of shared common intention.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assault on the victims and the establishment of common intention among the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish common intention based on the evidence of the assault and upheld the conviction of one appellant while acquitting another due to the lack of evidence of shared common intention.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence for one appellant, while setting aside the conviction and sentence for another appellant based on the lack of evidence of shared common intention.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 4th February, 2011 and Order of Sentence dated 5th February, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2010, whereby, the appellant no. 1 Surendra Yadav and the appellant no. 2 Sri Niwash Yadav have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further the appellant nos.1 and 2 were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 447/34 of the I.P.C. The appellant nos.1 to 3 were also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that informant Mahesh Prasad Yadav gave the written information with these allegations that in the morning he was at his house, Ranjit Yadav came and told that his elder brothers Surendra Yadav and Sri Niwash Yadav were installing the diesel engine water pump. On receiving this information, he reached there and saw that very engine which was stolen three days ago was with them. On being asked both provoked and they intruded in the house of the informant and began to beat him and assaulted with khanti over the head, whereby he became unconscious. His wife came to rescue and she was also assaulted by Surendra Yadav, Sri Niwash Yadav and Ranjit Yadav as well. On raising alarm, the persons of the village attracted there and the accused persons fled away. On the written information, the Case Crime No. 78 of 2009 under Sections 447/323/324/307/379/34 of the I.P.C. was lodged against the accused Surendra Yadav, Sri Niwash Yadav and Ranjit Yadav.
4. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against all the three named accused for the same offence before the court of Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate concerned after having taken the cognizance thereon had committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge.
5. The trial court framed the charge against appellants Surendra Yadav and Sri Niwash Yadav for the offence under Section 379/34 and 447/34 of the I.P.C. and against Surendra Yadav, Sri Niwash Yadav and Ranjeet Yadav for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. The charge was read over to all the accused, who denied the charge and claimed for trial.
6. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons in oral evidence examined PW-1 Beena Devi, PW-2 Bidya Nand Yadav, PW-3 Gorelal Yadav, PW-4 Mahesh Yadav, PW-5 Sachidanand Choudhary, PW-6 Shamim Khan (the I.O.) and PW-7 Dr. Amitesh Ranjan Shrivastava.
7. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced signature of Vidyanand Yadav on seizure list Ext.1, seizure list Ext.1/1, signature of Gorelal Yadav on fard beyan Ext.2, fard beyan Ext.2, requisition sent for treatment of injured Mahesh Yadav Ext.3, requisition sent for treatment of injured Beena Devi Ext.3/1, case registration endorsement on fard beyan Ext.2/2, formal F.I.R. Ext.4, paragraphs 1 to 48 of the case diary Ext.5, injury report of injured Mahesh Yadav Ext.6, injury report of injured Beena Devi Ext.6/1 and x-ray plate of Beena Devi Ext.6/2.
8. The statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances against them. Appellant no. 3 Ranjeet Yadav in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish common intention based on the evidence of the assault, resulting in the convict....
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The appellants were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the assault occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, with shared common intention.
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.
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
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 testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, and common intention among co-accused can be inferred from their conduct during the commission of the crime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
