LexSHANKARLAL KACHRABHAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
287
A
SHANKARLAL KACHRABHAI AND OTHERS
B
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
September 21, 1964
(K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI JJ.)
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of
01860), ss. 34, 301 and 302-Scope
of-"Criminal act" in s. 34, meaning of.
Where four persons shot at the deceased with the intention of kill·
ing him but under a misapprehension that he .was >Ome one else they
oould be found guilty of an offence under s.
302 of the Indian Penal
C
Code, read with s. 34 of the Code. It would be a case of killing the
deceased in furtherance of their common intention to kill the other, and
there would not be any necessity to invoke s. 301 of the Code to find them
guilty. In fact that section would apply only to cases where there was
no intention to cause the death, or knowledge that death was likely to
be caused, of the deceased. £2910-E, H; 292A-B].
Barendra Kumar Ghosh
v. Emperor, L.R. 52 I.A. 40 and Mahbub
D
Shah v. King Emperor, L.R. 72 I.A. 148 referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal Appeal
No. 191 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 9, 10 and 12 of 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal
E Appeal No. 426 of 1961.
F
G
H
A. S. R. Chari, and R. A. {Jagrat, for the appellants.
H. R. Khanna, R. H. DheblJ.r and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sobba Rao J. This appeal by special leave raises an interest-
ing question involving the construction of s. 34, read with s. 301
of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellants who are 11 iu number were accused Nos. 1 to
10 and 12 in the Sessions Court. Mehsana.
The case of the
prosecution may be stated thus : In the village of Aithor there
are about 300 houses of Kadva Patidars and about 15 to 20
houses of Leva Patidars. On January 16, 1961. at about~ P.M.
seven persons, who are Leva Patidars, came to the chowk where
there is a pan shop cabin of Girdhar Shanker.
These seven
persons were, Rama Bhupta, Lakha Madha, Hira Punja, Jetha
Nagar, Parshottam Prabhuva, Mlnor Madha and Gova Shiva.
At the same time the 12 accused also came to that place. Accused
1 to 6 were each armed with a muzzle loading gun; accused 7,
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1965] 1 S.C.R.
8, 11 and 12 were armed with sticks; accused 9 and 10 were
A
armed with dharias.
Accused I to 4 fired their guns and Rama
Bhupta fell down and died near the door of the cabin of Girdhar.
Accused 5 and 6 fired their guns and Lakha Madha was injured.
Accused 1 fired his gun again and Jetha N agar received injuries.
Accused 5 and 6 fired again and Hira Punja was injured. Accused
8
7 to 12 were inciting accused
I to 6 to kill all these persons.
Other specific acts were attributed to some of the accused. The
learned Sessions Judge held that Rama Bhupta was killed as a
result of the firing by accused 1 to 4. that Lakha Madha was
injured by the firing by accused 5 and 6, that Jetha Nagar was
injured hy the firing by accused I, that Hira Punja was injured c
by the firing by accused 5 and 6, that accused 12 caused stick
injuries to Lakha and that accused 8 caused injury on the tongue
of Parshcttam Prabhuva. "The Sessions Judge also held that the
12 accused constituted an unlawful assemblv, but their common
intention was not to kill Rama Bhupta but ~nly Madha who was
not present in the chowk.
He acquitted all the accused under
D
s. 302, read with s. 149, of the Jndian Penal Code, but convicted
accused I to 4 under s. 302, read with s. 34, of the Jndian Penal
Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to a fine
of Rs. 2,000 each; he convicted all the accused under s. 324,
read with s. 149, of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries
to Hira Punja and others.
Accused 5 to 12 were also convicted
E
under s. 326, read with s. 34, and s. 324, read with s. 149 and
s. 148, of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to
various periods of imprisonment and fine.
The accused prefer-
red different apreals against their convictions and sentencei; and
the State of Gujarat filCd appeals against the acquittal of accused
5 to 12 anders. 302, read with s. 149, of the Indian Penal Code.
F
Tho State of Gujarat also filed a criminal revision for enhancing
sentences passed against all the accused, but it did not file any
appeal against the acquittal of accused 1 to 4 on the charge under
s. 302, read withs. 149. of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court
convic!ed accusedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.