LexKISHORE EKNATH NIKAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B KISHORE EKNA TH NIKAM v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA SEPTEMBER 22. 2006 [G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 34-Death caused by accused-J-Accused-2 prevented PWs from intervening in the matter by C causing knife injury to one of them-Conviction of the accused allracting Section 34 by Courts below-Applicability of Section 34 to Accused-2-- Held: The conduct of Accused-2 is sufficient to auract Section 34 because he acted if! furtherance of common intention of Accused-1--Common intention. Appellant-accused No. 2 along with Accused-I and 3 came where D deceased was sitting with P.W-1. They called deceased near them. After a discussion turned into exchange of hot words, the} started giving abuses. Thereafter A-1 gave a knife blow in the abdomen of deceased. Appellant- accused and A-3 were standing there. When other witnesses viz. PWs-2 and 3 tried to intervene, appellant-accused took out knife and threatened them to keep away and also caused injury to one of the witnesses. E Trial Court found A-I and appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 562 read with Section 34 IPC. A-3 was acquitted. High Court confirmed the conviction. In appeal to this Court appellant-accused contended that appellant- F accused was standing at the spot and preventing others from intervening in the matter, is not sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC for his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Dismissing the appeal, the Omrt G HELD: A perusal of the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 shows that there H is no manner of doubt that accused-appellant in furtherance of the common intention of the A-1 tried to prevent PWs 2 and 3 from intervening in the matter. So much so that PW 3 who wanted to intervene, effectively was prevented by causing knife injury by accused appellant Therefore, this 556 ,. KISHOREEKNATHNIKAM...STATEOFMAHARASHTRA[A.K:MATHUR, J.) 557 conduct of the accused - appellant is sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC because A he acted in furtherance of common intention of accused A-1. Looking to the facts of the present case there remains no manner of doubt that accused appellant was acting in furtherance of common intention and prevented PWs 2 and 3 to save deceased. He facilitated the commission of the offence in furtherance of common intention of A-1 in commission of the murder of the B deceased. Therefore, Section 34 is attracted in the present case and the accused appellant was rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 oflPC. (560-E-G[ Parshuram Singh v. State of Bihar, [2002[ 8 SCC 16; Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, [2001[ 4 SCC 193 and ldrish Bhai Daudbhai v. State of C Gujarat, (2005[ 3 SCC 277, distinguished . . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 25/27.01.2005 of the High Court of D Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 727/1999. S.B. Sanyal, Naresh Kaushik and Lalita Kaushik for the Appellant.- V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered ~y E A.K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal F No. 727 of 1999 whereby the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,0007 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment -for six months each. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 5007 each, in default to suffer simple G imprisonment for six months under Sections 504 and 562 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Bombay High Court. this appeal was filed. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.4.1998, Mahendra Vishwasrao Bhatge (PWI ),-Prashant (deceased) and Uttam Kumar had their H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A dinner at Maruti Hotel in Laxminpuri. After their dinner, they returned to Azad Chowk. PW -1 and deceased sat on the steps in front of one shop styled as "Shanti Plywood". Meanwhile, Uttam left the spot. Vijay Bapusaheb Piste (PW2) and Bandu @ Vijay Dynandeo Gata (PW3) were sitting inside of one cement godown nearby. Meanwhile, Jagdish Prabh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.