Chhota Ahirwar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 6 February, 2020
💁
This CASE IS RELATED WITH COMMON INTENTION
IN THIS criminal judgment dated 5 November 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, was tested which was dissmissed that Criminal Appeal No.1050 of 1994 documented by the litigant, and maintaining the Judgment dated 26th August 1994 Trial Court ASJ PATNA in Sessions Case No. 13/1993, entomb alia, sentencing the blamed litigant for an offence under Section 307 read with segment 34 IPC.
Main Issue The main Contention of this appeal was whether, having regard to the facts established by the Prosecution, the appellant could have been held guilty of an offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Facts: In a quarrel between the accused-appellant and the complainant on 22 October 1992, the main accused Khilai intervened and took out a country-made pistol from the right pocket of his trousers, and later pointed it towards the complainant and fired at the instigation of the accused-appellant. The complainant as the result got injured and started bleeding. The ASJ, Panna on 26 august 1994 held the accused-appellant guilty of an offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC, and the main accused Khilai guilty of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved the accused-appellant appealed to the High Court, the following appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal
Judgment: Hon'ble Supreme Court Revealed In the above-mentioned matter that section 34 is only attracted when a specific criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, in which case all the offenders are liable for that criminal activity in the same manner as the principal offender as if the act were done by all the offenders. This Section does not whittle down the liability of the principal offender committing the principal act but additionally makes all other offenders liable. The essence of liability under Section 34 is the simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal act to bring about a particular result, which consensus can even be developed at the spot as held in Lallan Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 1 SCC Mere participation in crime with others is not sufficient to attribute common intention.
The court said that section 34 IPC, is really intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party and prove exactly what part was played by each of them. Even though there may be some evidence that the main accused took out a pistol and opened fire, the Prosecution failed to establish any common, premeditated, or prearranged intention jointly of the accused-appellant and the main accused Khilai to kill the complainant, on the spot or otherwise. The Prosecution has also failed to prove that the pistol was fired at the exhortation of the accused-appellant. The court also mentioned that the Sessions Court and the High Court both fell in error in convicting the accused-appellant.
Supreme Court Held : - Thus the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal, confirming the judgment and order of the conviction of the Sessions Court as also the judgment and order of the Sessions Court were set aside, as against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was acquitted and directed to be set free forthwith. It was also made clear that the Court has not considered the merits of the conviction of the main accused Khilai and the appeal, if any, filed by the main accused Khilai shall be decided on its own merits.
Note : Kindly go through source before using the contents of this Notes.
SOURCE OF THIS JUDGEMENT
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62704506/
No comments:
Post a Comment