The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC, and the requirement of a prearranged plan to establish common intention.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Tahar Singh and Bal Krishna against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1988 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1986 (State vs. Tahar Singh and Others) convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment, respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. At the outset, it is to be noted that against the impugned judgment and order, accused Sughar Singh and Munshi Lal had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2103 of 1988. Since these accused have expired, appeal preferred by them has been abated vide order dated 1.11.2022 passed by this Court.

3. Brief facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Ramesh Chandra Yadav son of Gajodhar Singh in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) are that the informant was married with the daughter of late Sovran Singh, resident of village Rasoolpur, police station Kakwan in the year 1971. He was having a brother-in-law, who expired. His mother-in-law (Smt. Kitab Shri) had no other issue except the wife of the informant i.e. Smt. Chhidani Devi. Informant had gone to village Rasoolpur to attend the marriage ceremony of daughter of Dharam Singh, cousin brother-in-law of the informant (chachera sala). On 25.6.1986, informant was about to return home alongwith his wife and mother-in-law by the bullock-cart of Dharam Singh. At about 9.00 a.m. when Dharam Singh entered the house just to get them parking the bullock carts outside the village and said aunt get ready soon, it is getting late, close family members Tahar Singh son of Sughar Singh armed with sword, Balkarishna armed with axe and Sughar Singh son of Lal Singh Yadav armed with lathi entered into the house. Sughar Singh asked to the mother-in-law of the informant that he will not let her go and if she goes, she will transfer the whole land to her son-in-law. To this, she said that she will definitely go. Hearing her words, Munshi Lal exhorted to kill her. On this, accused Tahar Singh and Bal Krishna surrounded her and started assaulting with their respective weapons. On call of the informant and Dharam Singh, Arvind Kumar son of Manfool, Nahar Singh son of Ram Ram Autar, Ram Bhajan son of Dissa, Ram Narayan son of Kuber Yadav and several other people reached there and made alarm. At this moment, Tahar Singh, Bal Kishan and Sughar Singh surrounded Dharam Singh and made lethal assault upon him. Mother-in-law of the informant died on the spot on account of the injuries inflicted by them and Dharam Singh was seriously injured.

4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-4) was registered at Police Station concerned on 25.6.1986 at 1.15 p.m. mentioning all the details as described in Ext. Ka-1. G.D. entry was also made at the same time, which is Ext. Ka-5.

5. Investigation of the case proceeded. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Dharam Singh at the police station itself. He further recorded the statement of other witnesses also and recovered the murder weapons. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the deceased and papers relating to post mortem. The Investigating Officer also took the specimen of plain soil and bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ext. Ka-13. Post mortem of the dead-body of the deceased was performed.

6. Autopsy report (Ext. Ka-3) was prepared by Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW-5) after performing the post mortem of the deceased on 26.6.1986 at 1.00 p.m. On examination of the dead-body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found:

“(i) Incised wound 9 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. bone cut 8.5 c.m. backward