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

1981 Supreme(Online)(All) 2

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A, J
Chandrabhan – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Bhanchandra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 1979|Criminal Revision No. 694 of 1979



The court clarified liability under IPC sections concerning individual culpability in murder and assault based on common intention, distinguishing roles among co-accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 149, 307, 452, 148 - Appeal against conviction for murder - The appellants were convicted for murder and other offenses related to an assault on a medical practitioner and his son - Sentences were directed to run concurrently. (Paras 1, 23, 24)

(B) Evidence - Dying declarations - The court observed that the dying declarations made by the deceased were credible and corroborated by medical evidence - Even though the accused denied allegations, the presence of injured witnesses supported the prosecution's case. (Paras 17, 18)

(C) Common intention - The court held that while one appellant was liable under Section 302, the other could not be held liable under Section 149 for the murder due to lack of shared common intention. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted of murdering the deceased during a planned attack, fueled by enmity against the injured witness, a medical practitioner. Subsequent investigations and testimonies led to their conviction in lower courts.

Findings of Court:
The court validated the convictions, establishing individual responsibility for murder and assault based on the evidence and intentions of the accused, maintaining part of the conviction while modifying others to match liability.

Issues: The court considered if the attack was primarily motivated by a desire to commit murder or robbery and whether all accused shared common intent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that immediate acts reflecting vengeance indicated singular motives behind the violent incident - the threats predated these actions, supporting the prosecution's case. The distinction between individual acts in relation to common intention played a significant role in determining liability.

Result: The appeal of Chandrabhan is dismissed while Ram Sajiwan's conviction under Section 302/149 is set aside; for other charges, his conviction is maintained.

Table of Content
1. conviction details and background context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of injuries sustained and medical evaluations. (Para 4 , 12)
3. establishing liability based on individual actions in relation to common intention. (Para 17 , 20)
4. final determinations on appeal outcomes. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

1. The appeal has been filed by Chandrabhan and Ram Sajiwan against the order and judgement dated 3-3-1979 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in sessions trial No. 406 of 1978 convicting them under S.302/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment for committing the murder of Ashok. They have further been convicted under S.307/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. each for making the murderous assault on Dr. Bhanchandra. They have also been convicted under S.452 and S.148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years; R.I. and one year's R.I. respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The revision has been filed by Dr. Bhanchandra, the injured against both the accused persons for enhancement of their sentences.

2. The prosecution story, as revealed in the first information report and by the prosecution evidence briefly stated, is as follows. There is a small town of Maitha within the police circle, P.S. Sheoli, District Kanpur. It has a railway station. Dr. Bhanchandra is a respectable citizen of that place. He is also a medical practitioner and was having good practice. He has a good residence there in the outer hall of which he was having his clinic. There was also a sub-post office in that very hall and Dr. Bhan Chandra was himself the sub-postmaster. Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1) was the station master of the railway station Maitha. He was posted there since August, 1976. The daughter of his real uncle was married to Dr. Bhan Chandra. His residence was at the railway station which was at a distance of about one hundred paces from the residence of Dr. Bhanchandra. Ram Sajiwan appellant was a constable there. About two and a half months prior to the occurrence, Ram Sajiwan had treated Sri. Bhagwan Din Khushwaha an M.L.A. of that locality very badly at Maitha railway station. He had dragged him out of the train and had beaten him. Dr. Bhan Chandra had then gone to the railway station on getting that information and had reprimanded Ram Sajiwan. He being a public man had also publicly abused Ram Sajiwan strongly and a case was then brought against Ram Sajiwan with regard to that incident. When he was released on bail he went to Dr. Bhan Chandra about 25-30 days after that incident and had threatened him with dire consequences.
Chandra Bhan appellant was an associate of Ram Sajiwan. He retired from the military where he was a sepoy. He then became a contractor of country made liquor. He had good relations with the local police and under their protection he used to commit crimes. Dr. Bhanchandra being a public worker used to abuse him openly, Chandra Bhan's brother Amritlal was also a doctor. But he was not proving successful while Dr. Bhan Chandra had a very good practice. There was thus professional rivalry between the two families. Chandrabhan's residence was at a distance of about 60 paces from that of Dr. Bhanchandra. Once there was a quarrel between Chandrabhan appellant and Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1), who was related to Dr. Bhanchandra. Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1) as Station Master had detained at the station four bags of manure which Chunnilal, real brother of Chandrabhan appellant had brought there without paying freight. Chandrabhan appellant then arrived there and abused the Station Master and also threatened to beat him. That incident took place on 8-11-1977. The Station Master had then lodged a report with the G.R.P. to the effect that Chandrabhan appellant was a bully and he had apprehensions to his life and property from him. This happening was elicited in the cross - examination of Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1). It is thus clear that the relation

























































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