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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Karan Dekate – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 78 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lukesh Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Soumya Rai

Presence and active participation in an altercation, where one participant inflicts a fatal blow, is sufficient to establish a common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, even if the intent was formed spontaneously during the incident without prior conspiracy.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Appeal against conviction - Appellant participated in quarrel resulting in fatal stabbing by co-accused (juvenile) - Common intention established - Presence at scene and active participation sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC - Supreme Court precedents affirm that common intention can be formed during the occurrence - Evidence of related witnesses, if consistent, is reliable - Appeal dismissed.

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged that the deceased was involved in a dispute over wage payments with the appellant and a juvenile in conflict with law. During the altercation, the appellant allegedly participated while the juvenile stabbed the deceased, leading to death. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder with common intention but acquitted another co-accused.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction, finding that the eyewitness testimony (wife of the deceased) was consistent and natural. Despite the witness turning partially hostile, her evidence regarding the presence and participation of the appellant was found reliable. The medical evidence corroborated the homicidal nature of the death.

Issues: Whether the appellant shared a common intention under Section 34 IPC and whether his conviction is sustainable based on the provided evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior conspiracy is not necessary for Section 34 IPC; common intention can be formed spontaneously during the course of an incident. Evidence of related persons cannot be discarded solely on the basis of relationship if it is consistent and credible.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution case, trial court conviction, and appeal filing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding appellant's participation and evidence sufficiency. (Para 6 , 7)
3. judicial assessment confirming homicidal nature of death through medical evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. evaluation of eyewitness credibility and appellant's active role in the incident. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. legal principles regarding testimony of related witnesses and application of common intention. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. final confirmation of guilt and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

10-04-2026

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2023, passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Case No. 353/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 03 months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.03.2021 deceased Omprakash had gone to the house of Gorelal Yadav along with his wife Sangeeta @ Geeta Sahu in search of their son Suraj. At about 09:00 p.m., when they were chatting in the house of Gorelal Yadav PW-2, their neighbour Chandirka Dekate (acquitted accused) started quarreling with the complainant Sangeeta @ Geeta Sahu on the issue of withholding the amount of wages. At the same time the son of Chandrika Dekate and appellant Karan Dekate came there and they joined the quarrel between them. Appellant Karan Dekate and his mother Chandrika Dekate caught hold the hands of deceased Omprakash Sahu and her another son (juvenile in conflict with law) took out a knife from the house and stabbed on the chest and abdomen of the deceased. Thereafter, they fled away. The incident was also witnessed by Gorelal Yadav and other persons who were present. The injured was immediately taken to Primary Health Center Changorabhata from where he was shifted to Mekahara hospital Raipur where the deceased was declared dead. On the basis of the memo sent by the doctor from Doctor Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital Raipur, one unnumbered merg intimation Ex.-P/21 was recorded at Police Station Maudahapara, Raipur on 16.03.2021 at 10:35 a.m. The merg intimation was sent to jurisdictional Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur where numbered merg Ex.-P/17 was recorded and the police proceeded for merg enquiry. Inquest Ex.-P/12 was prepared by police in presence of the witnesses and the dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Doctor Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where PW-10 Doctor Vartika Singh conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave report Ex.-P/18. The doctor has opined that cause of death due to stab injury to abdomen and the manner of the death is homicidal in nature. FIR Ex.-P/21A was registered against 3 accused persons, juvenile in conflict with law, Karan Dekate and Chandrika Dekate for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Spot map Ex.-P/22 was prepared by police and Ex.-P/3 was prepared by Patwari. Piece of cotton in which blood found on the spot was taken out, plain cotton and bloodstained half T-shirt of the deceased have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.-P/5. The accused persons were arrested on 16.03.2021. The memorandum statement Ex.-P/4 of the juvenile in conflict with law was recorded and from him one knife has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/6. The knife was sent for its query report to the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. The doctor gave the query report Ex.-P/19 and opined that the injury found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by such knife. Further for confirmation of presence of

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