LexKILARI MALAKONDIAAH @ MALAYADRI & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 514
KILARI MALAKONDIAAH@ MALAYADRI & ORS.
v.
· " STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
· · [Crimin-al Appeal· No: 376 of 2007] .
1
..
\
'•
••
:
t,
,•
,
.
,;
· B
NOVEM13ER 21, 2008
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
-(
. .
SHARMA,JJJ
..
c
Penal Code, 1860:
s.302 rlw s.34 and s.307 rlw s.34 -Assault by accused
· with· deadly weapons, resulting in death of victim - Common
intention - Conviction by Courts below - Propriety of - On
facts, held: Proper - Prosecution version sufficient to fasten
D guilt on the accused.
s.34 - Applicability of - Discussed.
Evidence - Witness - Related witness - Testimony of -
Evidentiary value - Held: Relationship is not the factor to
E discard the prosecution version and render it suspect - At
the most, the Court is required to analyze the evidence in
some detai{ to rule out the possibility of felse implication.
According to the prosecution, owing to political
F rivalry, the accused-appellants assaulted the deceased
with deadly weapons which proved fatal. PWs 1 to 3 were
allegedly injured in the occurrence. The appellants were
convicted by the Courts below under s.302 r/w 34 and/
or s.307 r/w 34 IPC.
G
In the instant appeal, the conviction of the appellants
was challenged on various grounds viz. that the father
of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution;
that PWs 1, 2 and 3 were interested witnesses; and that
514
+-
KILARI MALAKONDIAAH@MALAYADRI & ORS. v. STATE 515
OF ANDHRA PRADESH
there was inordinate delay in filing of the FIR. It was also
A
contended that s.34 IPC had no application to the facts .
of the case; and· that details of the· overt act were not
g!v~n in the Fl~.·. ·
· ·
·
· · 'Oisinissin·g the appeal, the Court
.. .
.
B
.,..
HELD:1. The prosecution version is sufficient to ,
fasten the guilt on the·accused appellants. [Para 9] [522- ·
j
~
'
2. Though father of the deceased was not examined, c
three of the injured witnesses who had sustained injuries
during the occurrence were examined. Though they were .
subjected to incisive cross examination, nothing material
was elicited to disc~rd their evidence. [Para 5] [520-G-H;
521-A]
J
•
3 .. Great emphasis was laid on the fact that PWs 1 to
.. 3 are. related to the deceased. Relationship is not the
factor to discard ·the prosecution version· and render it
ID
. suspect. At the most, what the Court is required to do is
to analy.se the evidence in some detail to rule out the
E
possibility of false implication. In the instant case, the trial
Court ~as ~one.t~at. [Para 6].[521-A-B]
-
4. Though it was urged that there was delay in
l_odging the FIR, the tri~I Court and the High Court found
that in fact ther~ was no delay and the FIR was lodged · F
promptly. [~ara 6] [521-C]
5.1. S.34 IPC has been enacted on the principle of
joint liability· in the commission of a criminal act. The
section is only a rule of evidence· and does not create a G
substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section '
is the element of participation in action. The liability of
one person for an offence committed by another in the
course' of criminal act perpetrated by several persons
arises ·under s.34 if. ·such criminal act is done in
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] ~6 S.C.R.
A furtherance of a common intention of tile· persons wh~
join in comm"itting ·the crime .. Direct proof of ~ommon
intention ·is seldom •available and, therefore, .such
intention can only be inferred from the. circumstances
appearing from the proved facts of the case and the
B proved circumstances.·fn order to bring.home the charge
of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by
evidence, whether direct or ci.rcumstantial, that there was
plan' or meeting of mind of alf the accused persons to
commit the offence for which they are charged with· the
c aid of s.34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment;
but it must necessarily be before the commission of 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 each of -them has done it
0 individually by himself. [Para 7] [521-C-G]
s:2:·1he existence of a common intention amongst
the participants in a crime is the essential element for
application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts
of several persons charged .with commission of an
E offence jointly must be the same or identicallExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.