Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Abid and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D No. 883 of 2017, CRR No. 86 of 2018
Decided On : 27-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vipul Aggarwal, K.B. Raheja
For the Respondent: Pradeep Prakash Chahar
For the Complainant : Rahul Vohra, Mr. Aditya Jain

The establishment of mens rea through eyewitness accounts confirms collective criminal liability among participants in a murder, as vicarious responsibility persists even with varying roles in the act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, and 302 read with Section 34 - Conviction for murder and other offences - The trial court convicted the appellants for their roles in the murder of a victim by inflicting multiple injuries and ultimately drowning him - The court affirmed the conviction citing overwhelming witness testimony and confessions leading to recoveries of weapons - Evidence showed a common intention among co-accused in committing the crimes. (Paras 2, 3, 39, 40)

(B) Criminal law - Common intention and liability - The court emphasized that all accused participated in the murder with a shared intent, attributing vicarious liability to each despite differing involvement. (Paras 40)

(C) Evidentiary standards - The court clarified that ocular evidence from credible eyewitnesses takes precedence over medical reports in establishing facts of the case, supporting the prosecution's narrative. (Paras 21, 36)

Facts of the case:
The case stemmed from an incident on 17.11.2012, where the victim was attacked by multiple assailants over a dispute regarding a malfunctioning engine. Eyewitness accounts detailed the assault, leading to the victim's death by drowning in a canal. (Paras 4, 19)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented, both ocular and medical, substantiated the claim that the accused drowned the victim knowingly, having established a clear intent to kill, resulting in confirmed charges under relevant IPC sections. (Paras 35, 39)

Issues: The key questions were whether the culpability was effectively established against the accused and whether their individual actions constituted a common intention to commit murder. (Paras 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of pushing the victim into deep water demonstrated the requisite mens rea for murder, reinforcing that each accused shared a common intention, thus individually liable for the group's actions. (Paras 39, 41)

Result: Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed.

Table of Content
1. common questions of facts and law in appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. genesis of the prosecution case with police recovery. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. trial court conviction leading to appeal. (Para 8 , 12 , 13)
4. eyewitness testimony corroborating prosecution case. (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
5. importance of medical evidence in corroboration. (Para 21 , 26)
6. accused disclosure statements and recoveries. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. mens rea and causality in the context of murder. (Para 33 , 37 , 39 , 40)
8. final verdict affirming original conviction. (Para 42 , 43 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since the criminal appeal as well as the revision petition, both involve common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they are amenable to be decided through a common order.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Palwal, through a verdict drawn on 03.08.2017, upon Sessions Case No. 20 of 2013 proceeded to, in respect of charges drawn against the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 323/325 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, hence made a verdict of conviction, upon, the convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 04.08.2017, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to make the hereinafter extracted sentence(s) upon the convicts.

Under Sections	To undergo	Fine	In default
323 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for one year each.	Rs. 1,000/- each	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten days.
325 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for two years each.	Rs. 2,000/- each	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty days.
302 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for life each.	Rs. 10,000/- each	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. The convicts become aggrieved from the verdict of conviction (supra), and, also become aggrieved from the consequential thereto sentence(s) (supra), as became imposed upon them by the learned Convicting Court, and, have chosen to assail them, through theirs' constituting the instant appeal before this Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex.PA/2 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PA/2 are that on 17.11.2012, on receiving a telephonic message, ASI Prithiv Raj alongwith other police officials reached at the site and got recovered the dead body of one Makhmool from the canal and got recorded the statement of Fakruddin son of Deen Mohammad r/o Meerpur, to the effect that he is running a shop in the name and style of 'Khan Tractor Parts' and also got an engine installed after purchasing one marla land near the bank of Bighawali canal to irrigate their fields. Similarly, Amir and Sorab sons of Lahar Khan have also installed their engines there to irrigate their fields. The engine of Amir was installed inside a 'kothra' which was lying locked from outside. On the intervening night of 16/17.11.2012, their engine suddenly went out of order. His younger brother Makhmool (since deceased), who used to sleep in the kothra, situated near the engine, was present there. On suspicion, Amir and others picked up an oral duel with him. Today i.e. 17.11.2012 at around 7.00 AM, he along with his younger brother Shakir, nephew Hasan son of Sapiya, his cousin Asluddin son of Fajru, and, Hamid son of Jumme Khan reached there fields after taking diesel for the engine, where a canter was already parked. Amir, Sorab, Habib sons of Lahar Khan, Akbar and Akhtar sons of Himmat, Abbas and Abid sons of Habib, Harun son of Nasru, Kalu son of Saddiq, Azad and Tahir sons of Amir, Irshad son of Sohrab, Juber son of Himmat and Tayub son of Dalel, while nursing a grudge over the oral duel took place during the intervening night, by forming an unlawful assembly with common object while armed with lathies, dandas, axes and farsas were hiding themselves behind their kothra. The complainant had lit fire on the bank of the canal. Suddenly, Amir raised a lalkara to round them up and not to spare anyone. Accordingly, they rounded them up. Makhmool (since deceas