LexRAJU & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 2 S.C.R. 574 RAJU & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2009) FEBRUARY 10, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Murder - Prosecution of appellant-accused with other co-accused - In the assault C the co-accused were armed while the appellant-accused were unarmed - Incident was result of a previous incident of misbehavior of deceased with womenfolk - Conviction of the appellant-accused u/s. 302 with aid of s. 34, by courts below - Sentenced to life imprisonment - On appeal, held: On facts, D common intention of the appellant-accused with the co- accused to murder not proved - Conviction u/s. 302134 not sustainable - Conviction altered to uls. 304 (Part I) rlw s. 34 - Sentence of.appellant No. 2 altered to two years RI - Appellant No. 1, since is a juvenile, his case referred to E Juvenile Justice Board - Juvenile Justice (Care and· Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - ss. 15 and 20. The two appellants-accused were prosecuted u/s. 302/34 IPC alongwith two co-accused for having. caused death of a person. The prosecution case was that the F deceased misbehaved with the womenfolk in a marriage ceremony. As a fallout of that incident, the accused persons assaulted the deceased. The co-accused were armed with knives while the appellants-accused were not armed. One of the co-accused was declared a juvenile G and his trial was separated. Trial Court convicted the .co- accused u/s.302 IPC while convicted the appellants- accused uls. 302/34 IPC. Appellants-accused challenged their conviction and the same was confirmed by High Court. H 574 RAJU & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 575 In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the A evidence does not prove meeting of minds between the appellants and the co-accused; and that the case of appellant No. 2 is covered under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000, because he was less than 17 years on the date of the incident. B Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The conviction of both the appellants u/ s. 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC is not warranted. The ultimate assault causing death of the deceased was C the culmination of an incident which had occurred earlier during a marriage ceremony where the women folk, wh_o were participating in the festivities, were teased by the deceased in an inebriated state. The resultant fall-out was the immediate response to the said incident with the D intention of preserving the honour and dignity of the said women. It is on account of the said incident that subsequently the accused persons assaulted the deceased and wheri he tried to run away, they chased him and on being caught, he was fatally injured by the E two co-accused with knives. [Para 9] (580-G-H; · 581-A-C] ~ .2. Although, it has been urged that the appellants had knowledge that both the co-accused were carrying knives, the same is not borne out from the evidence and their role in the incident in chasing the victim and, thereafter, holding him, was more likely to teach him a lesson as was sought ·to be projected as his defence. In the absence of any common intention, the conviction of F the appellants u/s. 302 with the aid of Section 34 cannot be sustained. [Para 9] [581-8-D] G 1.3. It is no doubt true that the evidence of PW.5 the complainant and PW. 7 another eye-witness was corroborated by the injuries on the body of the victim, ·.but H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A that by itself would not establish common intention as far as the appellants in the present appeal are concerned. [Para 9] [581-D-E] 1.4. The role attributed to the appellants would attract B the provisions of Section 304 (Part I) IPC and not Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal as far as the appellants' conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC must, therefore, succeed and their conviction must be altered to one under Section 304 Part C I read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 9] [581-G-H; 581-A] V. Sreedharan vs. State of Kera/a 1992 Supp (3) SCC 21, relied on. -· 2. As far as the appellant No.1 is concerned, his case 0 be referred to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board in terms of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to be dealt _with under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the provision of Section 15 thereof and having particular
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.