Back
Conviction Requires As First Intent: Acquits Sattu
The has delivered a significant ruling on the interpretation of , holding that for a conviction under this provision, the prosecution must establish that was the and that the murder was committed . A single bench of Justice Samit Gopal allowed a and acquitted the surviving appellant Sattu, who had been sentenced to ten years of by a trial court in 1982.
The Case That Began with a Deadly Encounter
The case stems from an incident on , when Atar Singh, a resident of village Patiyali, was shot dead near a culvert in front of Chehka village. According to the prosecution, Atar Singh, along with his son Dhirendra Pal Singh (the first informant), his brother Raghunath Singh, and others, had alighted from a bus at Dariyabganj and were walking home when they were confronted by Mahavira, a notorious dacoit, and about 12 armed associates.
The prosecution alleged that Mahavira, who had an enmity with Atar Singh because the latter had helped police in his earlier arrest, fired at Atar Singh. Atar Singh, who was carrying a licensed SBBL gun, fired back, injuring two of Mahavira's men. In the ensuing crossfire, Atar Singh sustained multiple firearm injuries and died at the spot. The co-accused Chandrapal was accused of taking away Atar Singh's gun and cartridge belt.
The Flawed Conviction Under Section 396
The trial court had convicted all six named accused under , categorising the incident as " with murder" and sentencing them to ten years' . However, during the pendency of the appeal, four of the accused—Krishna Pal, Ram Lal, Munshi Singh, and Chandrapal—died, and their appeals abated. The case thus survived only against Sattu.
The Crucial Piece of Law: Must Come First
Justice Gopal meticulously examined the facts and the legal provisions. The court observed that requires five or more persons to be , and , murder is committed. itself, as defined under , involves five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit .
The court found that the prosecution's own narrative did not establish that the accused had assembled with the intention of committing . Instead, the parties met all of a sudden , and the challenge was based on past enmity. The firing was triggered by that personal grudge, and the gun and cartridges were taken only after Atar Singh had died.
The bench noted:
"The prosecution story thus shows that the meeting of the first informant and the presence of Mahavira and his associates was all of a sudden. The intention of the accused thus as per the prosecution case cannot be said to be of with murder ."
Further, the court observed:
"In the present case the between the act of committing and murder while committing so is not established."
No Evidence of a Dacoit Gang
The High Court also highlighted that there was no evidence on record to prove that Mahavira had a gang of dacoits including the surviving appellant. No incriminating material was recovered from Sattu's possession or on his pointing out. Despite multiple persons firing, no other person from the informant's side was injured.
The Verdict:
Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the of , the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of . The court acquitted Sattu of all charges, cancelled his bail bonds, and discharged his sureties.
This judgment reinforces a key principle of criminal law: that the sequence and intention of the crime must align with the specific legal provision invoked. A conviction under cannot be sustained if the murder was not committed in the course of a that was the primary objective of the assembly.
