Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1726

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Dharm Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2015 | S.T. No.04/2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Jain, Mrs. Kiran Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudeep Verma, Mr. Arjit Tiwari

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction of accused-appellants for murder and sentencing to life imprisonment - Accused assaulted deceased leading to grievous injuries causing death - Court discussed the requirement for proving common intention under Section 34 and affirmed the conviction of appellant No.1, but acquitted appellants No.2 to 4 due to lack of evidence of shared common intention - Court determined that only appellant No.1, under heat of the moment, had acted without premeditation in a sudden quarrel over land dispute. (Paras 1, 17, 18, 31)

Facts of the case:
The accused-appellants, involved in a land dispute, physically assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death after medical treatment. Witnesses testified to the events leading up to the altercation. The prosecution claimed a common intention to kill.

Findings of Court:
The trial court convicted all appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The High Court set aside convictions for appellants No.2 to 4 due to insufficient evidence, affirming that only appellant No.1 acted in a culpable manner.

Issues: The court assessed whether the actions of appellants No.2 to 4 were justified under Section 34 and if appellant No.1's actions constituted murder or manslaughter.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere presence of the appellants at the scene does not imply a shared intention to commit murder; thus, the conviction of appellants No.2 to 4 was set aside, while convicting appellant No.1 of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(Part II) of IPC.

Result: Appeals allowed in part; convictions of appellants No.2 to 4 set aside, conviction of appellant No.1 altered to Section 304(Part II) of IPC.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and incident details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. contention regarding the lack of common intention and premeditation. (Para 8 , 19)
3. court's reflections on evidence and application of law. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 24 , 29)
4. clarification of legal standards under s.34 of ipc. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 23 , 28)
5. final adjudication of convictions and orders made by the court. (Para 31 , 32)

1. This criminal appeal filed by the accused - appellants under S.374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in S.T. No.04/2014, whereby the appellants - accused have been convicted for offence under S.302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of fine, additional imprisonment of 01 year each.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.11.2013 at about 03:00 pm at Village Botla, the accused - appellants shared a common intention to kill Samaru Singh (deceased) and, in furtherance thereof, assaulted Samaru Singh (deceased) by means of 'lathi', hand, fist and legs, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment in hospital and, thereby, committed the offence under S.302 r/w 34 of IPC .

3. In the instant case, it is admitted and undisputed facts that: Amir Singh (PW - 05) and Rai Singh (PW - 01) are brothers of deceased - Samaru Singh and Ku. Fulkunwar is sister of deceased - Samaru Singh; all the accused persons / appellants and the deceased are resident of Village Botla; and appellant No.02 - Asman Singh and appellant No.04 - Meena Kumari are son and daughter of appellant No.03 - Smt. Vedmati.

4. The further case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that: on 14.11.2013, in the afternoon, deceased - Samaru Singh was going towards Mateen Pahad for the purpose of gazing cattle, and about 03:00 PM when he reached near his fields (farm) at Jhumarjhotki Nala, he saw accused - appellants were cutting paddy / harvesting crops from his fields; thereafter, deceased - Samaru Singh entered into the fields and asked accused - appellants not to cut paddy from his fields, but they refused and started abusing him by encircling deceased - Samaru Singh and, at that juncture, accused - appellant No.01 - Dharm Singh armed with 'lathi' was standing there; Fulkunwar (PW - 04), who is sister of deceased, also reached on the spot, as she came to cut paddy from the fields and Sukul Singh (PW - 02), who was going towards market to purchase some stuff by that side, also reached on the spot, and they both saw accused - appellants disputing with deceased - Samaru Singh by encircling him, pursuant to which, they immediately informed the brothers of deceased - Samaru Singh, namely, Amir Singh (PW - 05) and Rai Singh (PW - 01) and, thereafter, they all visited the place of incident; on the place of incident, appellant No.01 - Dharm Singh assaulted deceased - Samaru Singh by means of 'lathi' and appellants No.02 to 04 assaulted deceased by means of hand, fist and legs, due to which deceased - Samaru Singh sustained injuries and fell down on floor in an unconscious state and, thereafter, he was taken to Podi - Uproda Hospital for treatment, where on 15.11.2013, at about 05:00 AM in the morning he died during the course of treatment.

5. Thereafter, on the basis of information given by Amir Singh (PW - 05), marg intimation (Ex.P / 05) was recorded and FIR (Ex.P / 06) was also registered by the police against the accused - appellants. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P / 02. Nazari Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P / 04. The dead - body of deceased - Samaru Singh was sent for postmortem examination and, in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P / 03), conducted by Dr. Rakesh Agrawal (PW - 07), it has been opined that the cause of death is due

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1726

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTPrashant Kumar Mishra, JDharm Singh – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCriminal Appeal No.353 of 2015 | S.T. No.04/2014

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.

Cases Referred (7)

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Dharm Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2015 | S.T. No.04/2014