LexCHIMANBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 4 S.C.R. 275 ,,.,...;.:; CHIMANBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL A ) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2009 MARCH 16, 2009 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ) .. Penal Code, 1860: • s. 307 rlw s.34 -Accused pouring poisonous insecticide c in the mouth of victim while co-accused caught hold of her - Conviction by trial court - Upheld by High Court - HELD: Co- accused rightly held by courts below guilty of s. 307 with the aid of s. 34 - However sentence of 5 years reduced to forty months period already undergone - Ingredients of s.307 - D ~ Explained - Applicability of s.34 - Discussed. p The appellant (A-2) alongwith A-1 was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/s 307 r/w s.34 and s.120-8 IPC. The prosecution case was that A-1 had love affair with the complainant. When the complainant became E pregnant, A-1 advised her for abortion . but she refused. She insisted upon A-1 to marry her; a Panchayat was also called and the decision of Panchayat thatA-1 should marry 't the complainant was declined by A-1. On the day of the incident, A-1 called the complainant at the place of F occurrence, where A-2 was also present. A-2 caught hold of the complainant and A-1 poured a poisonous insecticide in her mouth, as a result of which the complainant fainted. The accused left the place. The complainant was saved by the witnesses. In the hospital G -' her statement was recorded by the Mamlatdar. The trial t court convicted both the accused of the offences charged and imposed a sentence of five years. The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. 275 H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A In the instant appeal filed by A-2, the primary stand taken before the High Court was reiterated that offence u/ ' s 307 was not made out and s.34 IPC was not applicable. It was additionally pleaded that the appellant having already undergone sentence of 40 months was entitled B to certain remissions. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence u/s 307 IPC are: (i) that .. the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such • c death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the D accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing ' • an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily E injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. [para 6] [280-E-G] 2. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by . - F several persons arises u/s 34 IPC, if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if G each of them has done it individually by himself. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be I difficult to distinguish between acts of individual .. members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by H each of them. [para 7-8] [281-A-H; 282-A-B] .. • CHIMANBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL VS. 277 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109 and A Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 1899 - relied on. 3. In the background of the provisions of ss. 307 and 34, the trial court and the High Court was justified in 8 holding that the appellant was guilty of offence punishable u/s 307 read with s.34 IPC. Considering the nature of the accusations and the role played by the appellant, the custodial sentence is restricted to the period already undergone. [para 9-10] [282-C-E] Case Law Reference AIR 1977 SC 109 AIR 1993 SC 1899 relied on relied on para 7 para 8 c CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D No. 469 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 22.11.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.