Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Section 34 IPC: Immaterial Whether Accused Used Weapon Or Caused Injury If 'Common Intention' To Kill Deceased Is Established: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 March 2022 1:11 PM GMT
Section 34 IPC: Immaterial Whether Accused Used Weapon Or Caused Injury If Common Intention To Kill Deceased Is Established: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that once it is established that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased, it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased.In this case, the Trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable...

The Supreme Court observed that once it is established that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased, it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased.

In this case, the Trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced all the accused to undergo life imprisonment. Allowing the appeal filed by three accused, the High Court acquitted them observing that there are contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence, and therefore the presence of accused s doubtful and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The State filed appeal against this judgment of the High Court.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, referring to evidence on record, observed that there are no  material contradictions in the ocular and the medical evidence. The court noted that the presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused including accused No.1 and 3 shared the common intention.

"Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not.", the bench observed.

Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction recorded by the Trial Court.

Headnotes 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 34 - Common Intention - Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. (Para 4.2)

Summary: Appeal against High Court acquitting some of the accused in a murder case - Allowed - There are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused shared the common intention - Trial Court judgment restored.

Case details

State of MP vs Ramji Lal Sharma | CrA 293 OF 2022 | 9 March 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna






Next Story