SHAIK CHINA BRAHMAM versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 29-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
·-j<' 
SHAIK CHINA BRAHMAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
_, 
[G.P. MATHUR AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.302 r. w. s.34-Common intention-Two accused, A-1 andA~2- c 
Jointly reached the spot-A-1 stabbed deceased repeatedly with knife-
A-2 caused injuries to deceased with iron rod-Acquittal by Sessions 
Judge-Conviction under ss.302134 by High Court-Challenged by A-
2 on the ground that he was armed with iron rod which did not cause 
.,, 
fatal injwy and main injuries were given by A-1-Held: Iron rod can 
D 
also cause fatal injuries-Injuries sustained by A-2 while snatching 
{ 
back knife from deceased which deceased had snatched from A-1, show 
that A-2 shared common intention with A-1 to cause injuries to 
deceased-False implication ruled out as no enmity shown between 
eye-witness and accused-Essential conditions/or application of s. 34 
having been established, accused persons rightly convicted under E 
ss.302134. 
Prosecution case was that A-1 had borrowed Rs.300/- from the 
deceased. Accused did not repay the amount due to which their 
relations became strained. On the fateful day, the deceased and his F 
cousin PW-1 were returning after attending the call of nature, when 
A-1 and A-2 suddenly appeared on the spot. A-1 stabbed the 
deceased repeatedly with a knife which he was carrying and A~2 
caused injuries to the deceased with iron rod. After receiving injuries, 
the deceased died on the spot. The Sessions Judge acquitted both G 
# 
-~-
the accused A-1 and A-2. On appeal, High Court convicted accused 
under s.302 r.w. s.34 IPC. The appeal was filed only by A-2. 
The appellant contended that he cannot be held liable under s. 
302 r.w. s. 34 IPC as the main injuries were given by A-1, who was 
657 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A armed with a knife and he was responsible for injuries to trachea and 
occipital region which proved fatal and that the appellant A-2 was 
armed with an iron rod and he did not cause any fatal injury. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The testimony of PW.2, wife of deceased, establishes 
that there was dispute regarding borrowing ofRs.300/- between A-
l and the deceased. Two days prior to the occurrence, exchange of 
hot words had taken place between them at a tea stall where A-2 
was also present and at that time A-1 had declared that he would 
C kill the deceased. This shows that there was motive on the part of 
the accused to assault the deceased. PW.1 had deposed that on the 
day of occurrence, he had gone along with deceased for answering 
the call of nature. While returning, A-1 armed with knife and A-2 
armed with rod started assaulting the deceased. He has also deposed 
D that the deceased had snatched the knife from A-1, but A-1 snatched 
it back and again caused injuries from the same to the deceased. 
PW.1 gave immediate information about the occurrence to the family 
members including the wife of the deceased, PW.2, which is 
established from her testimony. Both the accused were sent for 
E medical examination and three incised wounds were found on the 
right and left palm of A-1 and one incised wound was found on the 
right palm of A-2. The injuries on the palm of A-1 and A-2 completely 
corroborate the version given by PW.1 that the deceased had 
snatched the knife from the hands of A-1, but accused again snatched 
F it back. The multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased, which 
are mostly cut injuries besides contusions, also corroborate the eye-
witness account given by PW.1. (Para 11) [665-E, F, G; 666-A, B, CJ 
2. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any 
enmity between PW.1 and the accused, on account of which he may 
G falsely implicate them. In fact, the defence has given no suggestion 
in his cross-examination that he had any reason to falsely implicate 
the accused. Thus, from the evidence on record, the case of the 
prosecution is fully established. The High Court, therefore, rightly 
convicted both the accused. The Sessions Judge had committed 
H 
' 
SHAIKCHINABRAHMAMv. STATE 
659 
manifest error oflaw in giving too much weight to some minor and A 
insignificant contradictions. The Sessions Judge had also given undue 
importance to the timings deposed to by PW .1 in going from the place 
of occurrence to the house of the deceased, then going from there 
to the police station and getting the FIR scribed. As PW.1 was not a 
highly educated person, he was not expected to have 

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