LexRAMDEO KAHAR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1364 A RAMDEO KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR ~ (Criminal Appeal No. 126-127 of 2006) DECEMBER 19, 2008 . B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302134 - Murder - Prosecution - Of eleven accused c, - Eye-witnesses and two injured eye-witnesses - Injuries on the person of one of the accused persons - Conviction of three accused by courts below - On appeal, .held: Conviction justified - Prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence arid evidence of eye-witnesses - Non-explanation D of injuries on the accused not material as they were simple in nature - Circumstances of the case prove that the accused had formed common intention to commit the offence. s. 34 - Common intention - Applicability of- Discussed. The three appellants were prosecuted alongwith E eight other accused for having caused death of one person and causing injuries to others. According to prosecution, all the accused came armed with deadly weapons looking for one 'P'. The motive for the offence was standing enmity between the parties; and that before F the day of incident, one of the accused had misbehaved with some female member of the family of complainant party, to which 'P' had objected. When the deceased )o- advised them not to fight, appellant-accused No. 1 fired at him at the exhortation of appellant-accused No. 4. Appellants-accused Nos. 4 and 5 also assaulted P.W. 7 G and P.W. 6, who were the eye-witnesses to the incident alongwith other six eye-witnesses. 'Accused No. 5' had also lodged FIR against prosecution witnesses uls. 307 IPC for causing injury to • ~ him and one other person 'N'. H 1364 - ..: ~ l ~ RAMDEO KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1365 During trial, appellants examined DW-1 (a Sub- A - Inspector of Police) who had examined accused No. 5 and 'N' and prepared requisition for their medical treatment; and D.W. 2 (the doctor who examined appellant No. 5 and 'N'). Trial Court convicted the appellants-accused u/s. 302/ B 34 IPC while acquitting the other eight accused. High Court upheld the order of High Court. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The death of the deceased and the c injuries suffered by P.W.6 and P.W. 7 took place in the manner stated by the prosecution. The prosecution case, 1 inter alia, was proved by six eye-witnesses and two injured eye-witnesses. The medical report also corroborates that the deceased was killed by gun shot D injuries. [Paras 10, 12 and 15] [1372-E; 1373-C; 1374-E] 1 1.2. The defence of the appellants has rightly been rejected by the courts below. Appellants in their examination u/s. 313 CrPC did not question the homicidal nature of death of the deceased. It was, however,' E contended that the prosecution witnesses had fired at accused No. 5 and caused injury to 'N' and in the process the deceased was killed by his own men. Though prosecution has not explained the injuries suffered by 'N'i and accused No. 5, but the fact that they suffered simple F injuries itself shows that non-explanation thereof would not be sufficient to brush aside the prosecution case, particularly when the case of the defence that one of them! had suffered gun shot injury had not been proved. [Paras 14 and 15) [1374-A-B-D] G 2.1. Appellants had formed a common intention. The very fact that all of them came heavily armed and that too: with many firearms clearly goes to show that a common intention was formed to commit a murder. [Para 16] [1374· F] H 1366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A 2.2. Only because the accused did not find the person in search of whom they had come, and instead committed the murder of the deceased, by itself may not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that they had no intention to commit any offence of causing murder. 8 Furthermore, whether they had the requisite intention or not must also be· judged from the surrounding circumstances. Accused No.1 fired a shot on exhortation by accused No. 4. It has furthermore been proved that both Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 5 used the weapons in their hands in foiling the attempts of P.W. 7 C and P.W. 6 to come to the place of occurrence to help the deceased. All of them also left the place of occurrence together; they fired shot together at random so as to prevent the prosecution witnesses to chase them. Common intention of the appellants had, thus, been D proved. Even othe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.