IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Salim @ Pappu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6666 of 2008 Connected with Criminal Appeal No. 6372 of 2008
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Common Intention - Criminal Liability - Section 302/34 IPC - Section 307 IPC - Section 25/4 Arms Act - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: Section 34 IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 304 Part II IPC, Section 307 IPC, Section 25/4 Arms Act] - The court found the accused appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 307 IPC. The court also examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC and the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, ultimately sentencing the accused appellants to ten years imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC, substituting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them under Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved a dispute between the accused appellants and the victims over sweeping the area in front of a workshop. The accused appellants were convicted for causing the death of one person and injuring another during the altercation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 307 IPC, and examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC and the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of the accused appellants' liability under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 307 IPC, as well as the applicability of the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused appellants acted with common intention, leading to their liability under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 307 IPC. The court also found that the case fell under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, resulting in the sentencing of the accused appellants under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, sentencing the accused appellants to ten years imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC, and ordering the release of one appellant from jail while taking the other into custody.
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. These two appeals are by the brothers of Dilshad, namely Saleem and Firoz, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 28/29.8.2008, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.11, Ghaziabad in Session Trial Nos. 383 of 1998 (State vs. Saleem @ Pappu and Firoz) and 309 of 1999 (State vs. Firoz), whereby the accused appellant Saleem @ Pappu has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and has also been convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- and accused appellant Firoz has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and has also been convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- and he has also been convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25/4 Arms Act with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of fine accused appellants are to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307/34 IPC and 307 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 25/4 Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the first informant Tahzeeb alongwith Suhail had gone to meet Mazid Ali (injured witness, PW-2) and his brother-in-law Fasiuddin (deceased) at their workshop and their helper Moinuddin was also present at 09.30 AM, when their neighbour Saleem @ Pappu, Firoz and Dilshad sons of Imamuddin started sweeping areas in front of their workshop such that dust started coming to the workshop of Mazid. Mazid and Fasiuddin accordingly asked the three accused to sprinkle water before sweeping the area so that dust does not come to their workshop and on this Saleem, Firoz and Dilshad started abusing them. Mazid and Fasiudding asked them not to do so on which the accused persons attacked them with knife. Saleem grabbed Fasiuddin and Dilshad stabbed him and Firoz stabbed Mazid. Seeing the occurrence neighbours and adjoining workshop owners rushed to the spot and tried to apprehend the accused persons but they fled. Mazid and Fasiuddin were taken to government hospital where Fasiuddin was declared dead and his dead body was kept in mortuary. Mazid after first aid was taken to Yashoda Hospital and was admitted there. It is with these contents that written report (Ext. Ka-1) was entered in the General Diary and registered as Case Crime No.594 of 1997 on 27.09.1997 at 12.20 PM, under Sections 302/307 IPC, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad. Individual role of accused appellant Saleem @ Pappu is of grabbing/catching hold the deceased Fasiuddin while accused appellant Firoz is accused of causing stab injury to Mazid. Section 34 IPC has also been invoked since the prosecution asserted that with a common intent the three accused persons have committed the offence in which one person, namely Fasiuddin, died and another Mazid sustained stab injury.
3. After registration of FIR the investigation proceeded. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and collected the bloodstained and plain earth. The inquest also followed. The inquest witnesses were of the view that the deceased died due to stabbed injury caused on his chest. The post-mortem of the deceased Fasiuddin was conducted on 28.09.1997 and the autopsy doctor opined the cause of death to be shock and haemorrhage due to following ante-mortem injury:-
"1. Incised wound 2cm x 1(1/2)cm x chest cavity deep on left side chest 7 cm away from left nipple at 10 o' clock position."
4. A subsequent FIR came to be lodged on 12.10.1997 at 02.00 AM when accused appellant Firoz and Dilshad were arrested on 11.10.1997 at 11.15 PM and two similar knives were recovered fro
Ramashish Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar
Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Asif Khan v. State of Maharashtra
Rajkishore Purohit v. State of M.P.
State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
AI
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 can arise spontaneously during the commission of an act, and upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on th....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove the meeting of minds and fusion of ideas among the accused for the application of Section 34 of IPC, and the consideration of the nature o....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in determining the appropriate conviction under the IPC.
Common intention must be established through evidence of prior planning or concerted action between accused; mere presence is insufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.