LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHOBHA RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 327 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHOBHA RAM (Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2008 etc.) JANUARY 16, 2013. [H.L. DATIU AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s. 302 read with s. 34 - Murder caused by two brothers - c Conviction by trial court of both the accused - High Court affirming conviction of appellant and acquitting his brother - Held: Evidence discloses that both accused brothers had an old enmity with deceased over a well - On date of incident deceased was attacked by both accused inasmuch as 0 appellant assaulted the deceased by stones while h~ brother facilitated execution of common design by sitting on his chest - Judgment of High Court acquitting one of the accused set aside and that of trial court convicting both restored. s. 34 - Common intention - Explained. The appellant (A-1) in Crl. A. No. 593 of 2008, along with his brother (A-2) faced trial for an offence punishable E uls 302134 IPC on the allegation that because of enmity pursuant to a dispute over a well, the accused caused F injuries to the brother of PW 1 with stones resulting in his death. The trial court convicted both the accused of the offence charged and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction of A-1, but acquitted A-2. G In the instant appeals, State challenged the acquittal of A-2, whereas A-1 challenged his conviction. Disposing of the appeals, the Court 327 H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. PW-6, in his evidence has stated that A-1 was assaulting the deceased with stones and A-2 facilitated execution of the common design by sitting on the chest of the deceased. Despite cross-examination at length, PW-6, has maintained his version, thereby, not B leaving any scope for the defense to elicit anything against the prosecution witness. Therefore, the evidence of the said witness is of sterling quality and is reliable and trustworthy, leaving this Court with no other alternative but to accept his evidence. Therefore, this c Court declines to interfere with the finding and conclusion reached by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court insofar as conviction of A-1 is concerned. [para 8) [331-G-H; 332-A-C] 1.2. A perusal of s.34; IPC would clearly indicate that D there must be two ingredients for convicting a person with the aid of s. 34 IPC. Firstly, there must be a common intention; and secondly, there must be participation by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention. The facts in the instant case in the light of the E evidences on record are that A-1 and A-2 are brothers having an old enmity with the deceased resulting in a constant skirmish over the well located in their lands. On the date of incident, the animosity culminated to an assault on the deceased by the accused persons when F A-1 was assaulting the deceased with stones and A-2 remained sitting on his chest. The chain of events gives a clear picture of the whole incident that had taken place on that fateful day. Thus, it can be concluded that both the accused persons had a common intention to assault G and kill the deceased pursuant to a pre-concerted plan. [para 11 and 13) [334-F-H; 335-A-B] Nadodi Jayaraman and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 3 SCC 161; Saravanan and Another vs. State of H Pondicherry 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 890 = (2004) 13 SCC 238; STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHOBHA RAM 329 Suresh & Anr. vs. State of UP. 2001(2) SCR 263 = (2001) 3 A SCC 673; Ramaswami Ayyangar and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 Suppl. SCR 580 = (1976) 3 SCC 779; and Hari Ram vs. State of U.P. (2004) 8 sec 146 - relied on 1.4. The judgment and order of conviction and B sentence against the accused persons passed by the trial court u/s 302 read with s.34, IPC is confirmed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court in acquitting accused A-2 is set aside. [para 14) [335-0-E] Case Law Reference: c (1992) 3 sec 161 relied on para 10 2004(5) Suppl. SCR 890 relied on para 10 2001 (2) SCR 263 relied on para 11 D 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 580 relied on para 11 (2004) a sec 146 relied on para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E No. 592 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2000. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2008. Sushi! Kr. Dubey, Milind Kumar, Subha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.