LABHA versus STATE OF UTTRANCHAL

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAB HA 
v. 
STATE OF UTTRANCHAL 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA, AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 302-Murder-Two persons caught hold of victim, third one 
C gave an exhortation and appellant inflicted 3 knife blows on him including 
one on vital part-Death of victim-Held, Courts below rightly held that 
death of victim was homicidal in nature and was caused by appellant-His 
conviction and sentence u/s 302 maintained-Trial court was right in opining 
that a case of common intention was not made against other accused-Their 
D acquittal upheld. 
Appellant and 3 others were prosecuted for an offence punishable under 
Section 302/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that 'U' had advanced Rs.Si-
to 'M'. When 'U' asked 'M' to pay the said amount back, the latter started 
abusing him. Meanwhile mother of appellant came there and gave an 
E exhortation whereupon 'M' and 'R' caught hold of 'U' and the appellant 
inflicted 3 knife blows on him. The victim after running a short distance fell 
down. The incident was witnessed by PW4, PW-7 and PWl, the father of the 
deceased, who were returning from market. The victim was taken to the 
hospital, where he was declared dead. The trial court convicted the appellant 
F under s.302 and acquitted the remaining three holding that the prosecution 
could not be able to prove that they had a common intention to commit the 
offence. The High Court having dismissed the appeal of the convicted accused, 
he filed the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In view of the medical evidence and the testimony of the eye 
witnesses, there is no reason to disagree with the findings of the courts below 
that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature and the same was caused 
by the appellant (Paras 6, 10 and 13) (829-F; 830-D, G) 
826 
t 
LAB HA v. ST A TE OF UTIRANCHAL 
827 
1.2. The First Information Report was lodged almost immediately after A 
the occurrence. P.W.4 is a relative of the P.W.1. They were coming back 
together from the market Both of them saw the entire incident and supported 
the prosecution case. Reliance was not placed upon the testimony of P.W.7 by 
the trial judge as some statements made by him before the Court had not been 
made before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The approach of the Court in this behalfalthough B 
may not be entirely correct, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, 
even on the testimony of other witnesses the prosecution has proved its case 
against the appellant [Para 9 and 8) [830-A-C) 
2.1. The submission that only a case under Section 304 (Part II) IPC C 
has been made out, cannot be accepted. The appellant was carrying a big knife. 
The intention to cause death and/or to cause an injury which is likely to cause 
death is evident from the fact that the first blow was given by the appellant on 
a vital part of the body namely 5 cm below the nipple. He inflicted three blows 
in quick succession. He took undue advantage of bis position as the deceased 
was being held by two other accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that there D 
had been no debasement or appellant did not take undue advantage of the 
situation and/or there was a total absence of cruelty. Further, there being no 
provocation on the part of the deceased, it is not a case where only an offence 
under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 
(Paras 14, 16, 17 and 20) (830-H; 831-D, E, G] E 
2.2. The trial judge was right in opining that a case of common intention 
has not been made out as against the other accused persons, as nobody probably 
in their wildest dream could have though that a petty dispute relating to demand 
ofRs.5 by the deceased, would lead to his death at the hands of the appellant 
(Para 16) [831-C) F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 
2007. 
. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2006 of the High Court 
, ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1281 of2001 (Old No. 1442 G 
of 1987. 
Vinay Singh, J.P. Tripathi and V. N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. 
Reepak Kans~! and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
l. One Umra advanced a petty sum of Rs. 5 to Multana by way of loan. 
On 31. I 0.1985 at about 9 p.m., he asked him to pay the said amount back to 
him. What w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.