LexJAGANNATH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAGANNATH A v. STATEOFM.P. SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-s. 302134 ands. 326-Altercation between parties- Accused inflicting axe blow on head of deceased resulting in his death'-co- accused causing injuries to prosecution witnesses-Courts below convicting C co-accused under s. 302134 and imposing rigorous imprisonment for life- Correctness of-Held: Co-accused did not share any common intention with accused for causing death of deceased-Injuries caused to the witnesses by co-accused were simple injuries-It was his individual act-Thus, co-accused guilty under s. 326 and not under s. 302134 and sentence of JO years rigorous imprisonment imposed D According to the prosecution case, D and R had collected pieces of wood and the appellant and P committed theft thereof which resulted in altercation between parties. It is alleged that P inflicted axe blow on the head of R which later resulted in his death. The appellant caused injuries to D. PW-2 and PW- 12 came to the scene of occurrence. Appellant assaulted them and they E sustained injuries. D lodged an FIR. Appellant and P were tried for offence under section 302/34 IPC. Trial Court convicted P under s. 302 IPC and the appellant under s. 302/34 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for life. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether F the appellant is said to have shared any common intention with P in causing the death of R. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is evident from the statement of prosecution witnesses that G there had been a quarrel. There was no pre-meditation between P and the appellant Therefore, injury caused upon the deceased by P, was an individual act. Similarly, causing of injury upon the prosecution witnesses by the appellant was his individual act. [Para 12) (1101-B, C] 1097 H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A 1.2 A common intention may be developed on the spot, but the same must not only be developed but also must be shared with the other accused. Concededly, the occurrence took place all of a sudden. The &ct of theft on the part of the accused persons was complete. They had been taking away the wood. They were followed by the R-deceased and PW-11. They must have been B obstructed from taking away the wood by them as the same were in their possession. It was at that juncture the deceased was said to have been assaulted by .p and DS. In a situation of this nature where the accused persons had acted at the spur of the moment having regard to the altercations which had preceded the incident, it is difficult to lead to the conclusion that P and the appellant had developed a common intention of causing death of the deceased. C If the statements of the prosecution witnesses PWs 2, 11 and 12 are to be believed, they acted almost at the same time. The High Court has also convicted P under Section 302 IPC holding that the same was his individual act. (Paras 13 and 14) (1101-D, E, F) 1.3 Injuries caused to PW 2 and PW 12 were also simple in nature. In D view of the nature of injuries caused by the appellant, he cannot be held to be guilty of commission of an offence under s. 302/34 IPC. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of commission of an offence under s. 326 IPC. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. E (Paras 20 and 21) (1104-A, BJ Noor@ Noordhin v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 8 SCALE 665 and Lala Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCALE 621,.referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of F 2005. G H From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 1993. Balraj Dewan for the Appellant. Vibha Dutta Makhija for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellant before us with one Prabhudayal was tried for alleged commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal -.,r1 JAGANNATH v. STATE [SINHA, J.] 1099 Code. A First Information Report was lodged by one Dhoomsingh (PW-11) A· at Obeydullaganj Police Station on 16.09, 1986 alleging that he and Ramsingh (since deceased) had collected pieces of wood from the bank of a river near their house, but the appellant and Prabhudayal, however, came th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.