SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 1039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
Vijay S/o Tolaram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 8763, 10693 of 2023
Decided On : 12-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Virendra Sharma
For the Respondent: Rajesh Joshi

To convict under Section 34 IPC, evidence of common intention and premeditation is crucial; liability cannot be ascribed without clear proof linking all accused to the crime.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 323, 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for assault - Appellants convicted under Section 324/34 and sentenced to 3 years R.I. - Conviction of one appellant modified to Section 323 due to lack of evidence of premeditation and common intention. (Paras 2, 14, 21)

(B) Common Intention - To establish Section 34 IPC, it requires proof of pre-arranged plan and collective action; absence of premeditated intent led to modification of conviction. (Paras 18, 20)

(C) Evidence - Testimonies of injured witnesses confirmed serious injuries caused by knife and supports conviction for main accused while providing benefit of doubt to other. (Paras 12, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
Appellants involved in a dispute leading to assault on complainant and another with a knife, resulting in serious injuries. The assault was not premeditated, and one appellant was not directly involved with the knife.

Findings of Court:
Mukesh convicted for Section 324 IPC based on clear evidence; Vijay’s conviction modified to Section 323 due to lack of evidence connecting him to the knife assault.

Issues: Legal determination of intent and liability under Section 34 IPC; credibility of witness testimonies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the involvement of the second appellant did not meet the threshold of common intention necessary for joint liability under Section 34 IPC due to evidence favoring his defense.

Result: Appeal of Mukesh dismissed, Vijay's conviction modified to Section 323 with altered sentencing.

Table of Content
1. overview of case and convictions (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the incident and investigation (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. assessment of witness testimonies (Para 6 , 12 , 13)
4. arguments regarding the charges against vijay (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 14)
5. application of legal principles on evidence (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 20)
6. establishing common intention in criminal liability (Para 18 , 19)
7. liability distinction between mukesh and vijay (Para 21)
8. final sentencing and appeals (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. confirmation of trial court's findings (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of these appeals as they are arisen out of same order date and same Sessions Trial number, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. These appeals are filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain District Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.174/2021, whereby appellants Mukesh and Vijay both have been convicted for offence under section 324/34 (two counts) of Indian Panel Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo 03-03 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, 1000/- with default stipulations.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 01.06.2021 due to petty dispute regarding use of pathway situated between the field of appellants and complainant party, the appellants hurled abuses and on being stopped by the complainant, appellants assaulted Vikas by kicks & fists, in between Mukesh took a knife from his pocket and assaulted Vikas on his head, chest, back, hip and stomach due to which he sustained injures and started bleeding. When Dilip came in rescue Mukesh gave a knife blow on his chest due to which Dilip sustained injury near his chest and started bleeding. Thereafter Dilip's relatives Jitesh and Dharmendra came to rescue the injured, then the accused persons threatened the complainant party to kill them, if they use the path way in future. Dilip filed a complaint, on the basis of which police registered crime No.336/2021 for offence under Sections 307 , 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC against the accused persons.

4. During investigation Police reached Sanjivini hospital wherein injured Dilip was admitted for treatment. On 02.06.2021, Dr. Rajendra Bansal submitted MLC report of injured Vikas and Dilip. On 02.06.2021, police recovered blood stained cloth from Dilip and at the instance of Dilip, police reached on the spot and prepared spot map, seized blood stained earth and plain earth, arrested accused Vijay and Mukesh. Further on the basis of memorandum statement of Mukesh, police recovered iron knife and blood stained shirt from his possession and thereafter, recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offence under Sections 307 , 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC, 1860 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain, District Ujjain who committed the case to the Court of Session, Ujjain whereupon charges were framed under Section 307 (on two counts), 294 and 506-II against the appellants.

5. Accused persons namely, Basantabai and Seemabai have already been acquitted from the aforesaid offence. Appellants Vijay and Mukesh abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case In this regard, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses namely the Dililp (PW-1), Vikas (PW-2), Dharmendra (PW-3), Sunil (PW-4), Dinesh (PW-5), Dr. Devesh Kumar (PW-6), Rajesh (PW-7), Lakhan (PW-8), Monabai (P.W.9), Dr. Rajendra Bansal (P.W.10), Virendra Sharma (P.W.11), Priyanka Mimrot (P.W.12), Sunil (P.W.13), Omprakash Ahir (P.W.14).

6. Having analyzed the testimony of prosecution and argument of both parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as hereinabove.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegation against both the accused persons is that they h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top