LexIMTIAZ AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
IMTIAZ AND ANR.
1<
~
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302. 324, 148 and 149-Dispute between
parties-:Murder of one and grievous injwy to other-Conviction under-
'(
~
'
c
Justification of-Applicability of s. 34-Held: Act of accused pre-meditated
and no( sudden-Accused failed to discharge the burden that incident was
sudden and there was sudden provocation by the other side-Thus, s. 300
exceptions 1 and 4 not attracted-Twelve accused came armed with weapons
and surrounded the deceased and the injured person-They did not inflict
injwy to the deceased but in fact attacked the injured-Thus, s. 34 applicable.
D
According to the prosecution case, there was dispute between
complainant, his brothers and the appellants. On the fateful day, appellants
armed with spears and Iathies having common object reached there and forbade
,---
complainant and his brothers from cleaning their drain and when they did
'\
not stop, appellant Q inflicted spear blow on AQ-complainant's brother and
E appellant Band I inflicted spear blow on M-complainant's other brother. The
remaining accused surrounded complainant and his brother swinging their
lathies and exhorted their companions. Both the brothers sustained spear
blows and AQ succumbed to his injuries Appellants were convicted and
sentenced under sections 148, 30Z/149 and 324/149 IPC. High Court upheld
F the order. Hence the present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
t--
HELD: 1.1. The occurrence clearly shows that the act of the accused
was premeditated, and not sudden. The holding of deadly weapons such as
G spears and lathies and their conduct both show that the appellants reached
there with a definite intention. For claiming any exception, the burden heavily
lies upon the accused. Appellants failed to discharge this burden. Therefore,
~
{
the incident was not sudden and does not fall within exception 4 of section
)L
300 IPC. (Para 19) (704-A, Bl
H
698
IMTIAZ v. STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 699
·-<\
1.2. For taking the benefit of the su~den provocation under exception l A
of Section 300 IPC, it was incumbent upon the appellants to prove beyond doubt
that the complainant or his brothers abused or used any other provocative
words which were sufficient to provoke a reasonable person in ordinary
circumstances. Appellants failed on this count also to prove that the
complainant or his companions abused them or used provocative words. B
Therefore, the case does not fall under exception l of section 300 IPC. [Para
20] (704-B, q
"f
2.1. Common intention may develop on the spot among a number of
'
persons and hence pre-concert in the sense of distinct previous plan is not
necessary to attract section 34 IPC. Also, it is not necessary to adduce direct c
evidence of common intention. The intention may be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties. (Paras 26 and 27)
[705-B, CJ
2.2. From the facts of the case it is clear that all the accused came armed
with spears and Iathies. All the.twelve accused surrounded deceased AQ as D
well as the injured person M. They attacked the deceased and the injured
who sustained spear blows and AQ succumbed to his injury. Appellants who
~
were armed with spears had inflicted a spear wound on M in his ilium. No
doubt the appellants had not inflicted the injury on the deceased but they had
come along with others armed with spears and lathies, and they, in fact, did
E
attack the injured. Hence, section 34 IPC clearly applies to the instant case.
(Paras 21, 22, 24, 25 and 28) (704-D, E, F; 705-A, B, DJ
State of U.P. v. Jftikhar Khan & Ors., (1973[ 1 SCC 512, referred to
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 211 of
F
2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1099/1981.
R.K. Dash, T.V. George for the Appellants.
G
_,
~
Dr. R.G. Padia, D.K. Goswami, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Anuvrat Sharma
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted.
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 2 S.C.R.
A
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
/>-'
Allahabad High Court dated 4.8.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1099of1981.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. By
that decision the HiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.