IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Nasir @ Guddu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5669, 6271 of 2018
Decided On : 12-12-2022
Common Intention - Criminal Law - Sections 452/34, 307/34, 302/34 and 120-B/34 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellants were convicted and sentenced for various charges including murder, based on the prosecution's case that they entered the room of the deceased with the common intention to kill. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, medical reports, and other evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused appellants guilty of murder and other charges based on the prosecution's evidence, concluding that the accused had the common intention to commit the crime. The court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 120B I.P.C. due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had the common intention to commit the crime, and whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also emphasized the principle that a person cannot be held vicariously accountable for the actions of another if their purpose to commit the crime was not common.
Final Decision: The appeal of the accused appellant Ravindra was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction against him were set aside. The appeal of the accused appellant Nasir @ Guddu was dismissed, and his conviction was upheld. The accused appellant Ravindra was ordered to be released from jail.
JUDGMENT :
Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.
1. These two appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 18th September, 2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 787 of 2007 (State Vs. Ravindra & Nasir @ Guddu), arising out of Case Crime No. 514 of 2006, under Sections 452/34, 307/34, 302/34 and 120-B/ 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Vijaynagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 452/34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, they have to further undergo one month additional imprisonment; ten years rigours imprisonment each under Section 307/34 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, they have to further undergo six months additional imprisonment each; and life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC, with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, they have to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. Both the appeals are thus being decided by means of this common judgment and order.
2. We have heard Mr. Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the accused appellant Nasir @ Guddu and Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivatava, learned counsel for the accused appellant-Ravindra and Mr. Arunendray Singh, learned A.G.A.. for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.
3. The prosecution story is that on the basis of written report of the informant-P.W.-1 Sanjay dated 27th August, 2006 (Exhibit-Ka/1) scribed by Balveer Singh, a first information report (Exhibit-Ka/7) has been lodged on 27th August, 2006 at 2330 hrs. against the accused-appellant Ravindra and one unknown person alleging therein that Guddu used to live in the house of informant Sanjay on rent. On August 27, 2006, at around 10:00 p.m. (night), while the informant/P.W.1 was having his dinner in Guddu's room along with Guddu and his wife, Ravindra and one other person wearing a green shirt, came and Ravindra called Guddu and the informant to come out on which they came out. Ravindra said that he after dropping his companion, would come again within two minutes. After dropping his companion, Ravindra came again and called Guddu to come out from his room. The first informant however called Guddu to come back in the room. The companion of Ravindra immediately came on the door of the room of Guddu and with a intention to kill Guddu, fired upon him by country-made pistol (Tamancha), which was in his hand, due to which Guddu sustained three gun shots. When the informant tried to save Guddu, that unknown person i.e. companion of Ravindra with intention to kill fired upon him due to which he also sustained gun shot injuries. The people of locality had taken Guddu to MMG hospital while the first informant/P.W.-1 got himself treated at Sanjeevani hospital and then came to lodge the report.
4. After lodging of the first information report, the Investigating Officer/P.W.-12 inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Exhibit-ka/5). He also collected the blood stained clothes and pillow cover and prepared the recovery memo of the same. He also took blood stained piece of floor (marble). He also took an empty cartridge. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of the informants, scriber of the written report and other witnesses. The injured Guddu, who was admitted in G.T.B. Hospital Shahdara, Delhi on 27th August, 2006 was declared dead by the Doctor vide death report dated 28th August, 2006 (Exhibit-Ka/10). The dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post-mortem under the supervision of Assistant Sub-Inspector Hukum Singh/P.W.-7 after doing inquest of the body of the deceased at G.T.B. Hospital.
5. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 28th August, 2006 at 03.00 p.m. by Dr. Barkha Gupta (P.W.-5). In the opinion of P.W.-5, the cause of death of deceased was hae
Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad
Balbir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ramesh Singh alias Phooti Vs. State of A.P.
Vadivelu Thevar & Another vs. State of Madras
Prithipal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another
Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
The judgment emphasizes the principle of common intention in criminal law, highlighting the requirement of prior concert and pre-arranged plan for establishing common intention. It also underscores t....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
The court reaffirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt in murder cases under IPC Sections 147, 149, and 302.
Murder – When there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and same has been corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of weapon does not affect persecution case.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if it is credible, while the application of Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention and ....
Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses.
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.