LexB.N. SRIKANTIAH & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1958
April i4
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1959]
B. N. SRIKAXT IAH & OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE
(BHAOWATI, J·. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARJ\AR JJ.)
'!lfurder-Chargc under s. 302 si1npliciter-Convicfion u11dcr
s. 302/34. u:hen perniissiblc-F'rej11dicc-Co1n1non Intention-Indian
Penal Code (XLl' of I86o), ss. 34 and 302.
•
Six persons \Vere charged under s. i43 Indian ]Jenal Code for
being members of an unlavvful assen1bly the con1111on object of
which \Vas to n1urder one Anne c;o\vda. J·'ive of then1 \Vere further
charged under s. 302 Indian Penal Code for comn1itting murder
by intentionally causing the death of Anne Gowda, and the sixth
was charged under s. 302/ro9 India! Pe1rnl Code for abetment of
rnurder. The trial Court acquitted all the six accused under s. 143,
acquitte<l two of them but convicted the three appellants under
s. 302, and convicted the sixth accused under s. 302/109. On
appeal the High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants
under s. 302 but acquitted the sixth accused under s. 302/rog. It
was contended by the appellant that as the prosecution had not
established which of the appellants had giyen the fatal blow none
of them could be convicted under s. 302 simpliciter and that as no
charge had been framed under s. 34 they could not be convicted
under s. 302/34 Indian Penal Code :
Held, that the on1isSion to mentions. 34 Indian J>enal Code
in the charge coulJ not affect the case unless prejudice '''as sho,vn
to have resulted in consequence thereof.
~fhe charge '"as that
the appellants and two others committed the murder by inten-
tionally cansing the death of the deceased.
The appellants had
notice that they \Vere being tried as " sharers in the offence " and
that their liability \Vas colJective and vicarious and not individual.
The appellants had neither alleged nor shown that the omission
to specify s. 34 in the charge had caus<'d them any prejudice.
Common intention is a question of fact and is to be gathered
from the acts of the parties. The evidenCe sho,ved that there \vas
preconcert, that the appellants attacked the deceased \Vi th chop-
pers i11juring him on the head, the neck, the shoulders and the
forearms and that the appellants not only caused injuries to the
deceased at the place \vhere they ·met hi111 but they also chase(l
him when he tPied to run away to save him~elf and continued to
assault him with the deadly wearons till he was dead.
The con-
duct of the appellants, the ferocity of the attack, the weapons
used, the situs of the injuries and their nature together \vith the
fact that there was preconcert established that the common inten-
tion of the appellants was to murder the deceased.
•
CRIMINAL APPELLA1'E
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 120 & 121 of 1955.
•
'
,
'
r
' '
'
r
.S.O;R.
SUPltEME COURT ):tEPORTS
497
· Appeals from the judgment and order dated Decem-·
x95S
her 16, 1954, of the Mysore High Court at Bang~l?re B. N. Srikantiah
'in Criminal Appeals Nos. 49 and 50 of 1953 arrsmg
""othm
out of the judgment and order dated May 19, 1953, of
v.
thlfCourt of the Third Additional Sessions Judge at
The Stale of
']3angalore in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 7 of 1953.
Mysore
• V. Krishnamurthy and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the
a,pj)ellants.
: G. Channappa, Assistant Allvocate-General for the
#tate of My-sore and T. 111. Sen, for the respondent.
; 1958. April 14.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
: KAPUR J.-'l'hese two appeals under Art. 134(l)(c)
Kapur J.
of the Constitution arise out of the judgment and
prder of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore
confirming the convictions and sentences pass13d upon
the appellants who were aecused Nos. ' 2, :3 <tnd 4
respectively by the Third Additional District Judge,
Bangalore.
Accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 who have been aec1uitted
and the appellants were charged as follows:
.
"l ........ +•···~···.11erebj.r cl1arge J1ou A~l Sanjeeva
.,
Rao, A-2 Srikantiah, A-3 8idda, A-4 Kidaripat.bi, A-5
.fianumantha and A-6 Pujari Anantha as follows: ·
.
I. That you on or about tJrn 25th day of Augnst
1952 at Mayasandra in Magadi Taluk were members
, ·Of an unlawful assembly the common object of whieh
\'\'as to murder ·deceased Anne Gowda and therebv
committed an offence punishable under section 143.0'f
the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizanee of
the Court of Sessions.
2.
That you A-2 Srikantiah, A-3 Sidda, A-4
Kadaripathi, A-5 l:fanumanthExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.