advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Sec.302 r/w 149 / 34 I.P.C- 5 accused - lower court not punished the appellants under sec.148 , high court acquitted two accused , one died - these two appellants remained as they are convicted simply under sec.302 I.P.C - whether framing of fresh charge under sec.302 I.P.C is necessary - Evidence on record and proved fact that these two appellants are the prime caused for the death of deceased victim - Apex court held that when there is no prejudice to the accused by non-framing of separate charge under sec.302 simpliciter not fatal for convicting the accused - Lowe court and High court rightly convicted the accused and as such dismissed the appeals = Pal Singh & Anr. …Appellants Versus State of Punjab …Respondent=2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41253

Sec.302 r/w 149 / 34 I.P.C- 5 accused - lower court not punished the appellants under sec.148 , high court acquitted two accused , one died - these two appellants remained as they are convicted simply under sec.302 I.P.C - whether framing of fresh charge under sec.302 I.P.C is necessary - Evidence on record and proved fact that these two appellants are the prime caused for the death of deceased victim - Apex court held that when there is no prejudice to the accused by non-framing of separate charge under sec.302 simpliciter not fatal for convicting the accused - Lowe court and High court rightly convicted the accused and as such dismissed the appeals =
Accused
      Sarabjit Singh and Gurdev Singh @ Manga  had  been  acquitted  of  the
      charges under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and 
the appeal  of  the
      present petitioners had been dismissed, and therefore their conviction
      under Section 302 IPC and the sentences awarded  by  the  trial  court
      remained intact.
Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
      petitioners has vehemently submitted that as one of  the  accused  has
      died and two have been acquitted  by  the  trial  court,  the  present
      petitioners had been convicted under Section 302 IPC  simpliciter  for
      which no charge had ever been framed. Therefore, the conviction of the
      petitioners deserves to be set aside.
 trial court as well as of  the  High  Court  and  the
      relevant evidence to show that none of the petitioners could  be  held
      exclusively responsible for the murder of Sarabjit Singh @ Kala. Thus,
      the petition deserves to be allowed.
 Initially, the charges had been framed by the trial court  under
      Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC against all the  accused
      persons. Fresh charges were subsequently framed  under  Sections  148,
      302, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, the ultimate situation remained
      that there was charge under Sections 302, 302/149 and 120-B  IPC
 However, they  have
      been acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC.  The High  Court
      has affirmed the conviction and sentence of  the  present  petitioners
      under Section 302 IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section  148
      IPC. 
The ultimate result remains that the present two petitioners  had
      been convicted under Section 302 IPC.

Whether it is legally permissible in the facts and circumstances
      of the case to convict these two petitioners  under  Section  302  IPC
      simpliciter without altering the charges by the High Court?

Apex court conclusion 
 It is also on record that these two petitioners were having  the
      iron rods while the other three accused named in the  FIR  were  empty
      handed. The evidence on record had been  that  Pal  Singh,  petitioner
      no.1 raised an exhortation that Sarabjit Singh @ Kala be  caught  hold
      and should not escape alive and gave two iron rod blows on  his  head.
      Manjinder Singh, petitioner no.2 gave two iron rod blows on the person
      of Sarabjit Singh, out of which one hit his  forehead  and  other  his
      right cheek.  On hearing  hue  and  cry,  a  large  number  of  people
      gathered on the place of occurrence and all the five  accused  persons
      ran away.
Version of the prosecution and the  injuries  found  on  the
      person of the deceased stood proved by the evidence  of  Gurdev  Singh
      (PW.6) and Amandeep Singh (PW.11) as well as by the deposition of  Dr.
      Daljit Singh Bains (PW.1), Senior  Medical  Officer,  Civil  Hospital,
      Phagwara. The ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses  corroborates  with
      the medical evidence. As there are concurrent findings in this  regard
      we have not been invited to determine the said issue.
 “Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code  provide  for
           criminal liability  viewed  from  different  angles  as  regards
           actual participants, accessories and men actuated  by  a  common
           object or a common intention; and the charge is a rolled-up  one
           involving the direct liability and  the  constructive  liability
           without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to
           be made constructively liable.
Case law
As there were doubts about the  conflict/correctness  of  these
      two judgments, the matter was  decided  by  a  Constitution  Bench  in
      Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956  SC  116,
                 In such a situation, the absence of a charge under  one  or
           other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence
           cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and  before  a  conviction
           for the substantive offence; without a charge can be set  aside,
           prejudice will have to be made out. In most of the cases of this
           kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to  who  was
           primarily responsible  for  the  act  which  brought  about  the
           offence and such evidence is of course relevant.


                       xx         xx         xx


                  This judgment should not be understood by the subordinate
           courts as sanctioning a deliberate disobedience to the mandatory
           requirements of the Code, or as giving any  license  to  proceed
           with trials without an appropriate charge. The omission to frame
           a charge is a grave defect  and  should  be  vigilantly  guarded
           against. In some cases, it may be so serious that by  itself  it
           would vitiate a trial and render it illegal,  prejudice  to  the
           accused being taken for granted.


                 In the main, the provisions of section 535 would apply  to
           cases of inadvertence to frame a charge induced  by  the  belief
           that  the  matter  on  record  is  sufficient  to  warrant   the
           conviction   for   a   particular   offence   without    express
           specification, and where the facts  proved  by  the  prosecution
           constitute a separate and distinct offence but closely  relevant
           to and springing out of the same set of facts connected with the
           one charged.”
In Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840, this Court
      considered the similar issue and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the
      accused has to satisfy the court  that  if  there  is  any  defect  in
      framing the  charge  it  has  prejudiced  the  cause  of  the  accused
      resulting in failure of justice.  It is only in that  eventuality  the
      court may interfere.  The Court elaborated the law as under:
           “The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it
           cannot be covered under Sections  464/465  CrPC,  which  provide
           that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed  to
           be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that
           there  was  some  irregularity  or  omission  or  misjoinder  of
           charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was
           also, as a consequence, a failure  of  justice.  In  determining
           whether any error,  omission  or  irregularity  in  framing  the
           relevant charges, has led to a failure  of  justice,  the  court
           must have regard to whether an objection could have been  raised
           at an earlier stage during the proceedings or not. While judging
           the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in  mind
           that every accused has a right to a  fair  trial,  where  he  is
           aware of what he is being tried for and where the  facts  sought
           to be established against him, are explained to him  fairly  and
           clearly, and further, where he is given a full and  fair  chance
           to defend himself against the said charge(s).
                 “Failure of justice” is  an  extremely  pliable  or  facile
           expression, which can be made to fit into any situation  in  any
           case. The court must endeavour to find the truth. There would be
           “failure of justice”; not only by unjust conviction, but also by
           acquittal of the guilty,  as  a  result  of  unjust  failure  to
           produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused
           have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded,  but  they  should
           not be overemphasised to  the  extent  of  forgetting  that  the
           victims also have rights. It has to be shown  that  the  accused
           has suffered some disability or  detriment  in  respect  of  the
           protections  available  to  him  under   the   Indian   criminal
           jurisprudence. “Prejudice” is incapable of being interpreted  in
           its generic sense and applied  to  criminal  jurisprudence.  The
           plea of prejudice has to be  in  relation  to  investigation  or
           trial, and not with respect to  matters  falling  outside  their
           scope. Once the accused is able to  show  that  there  has  been
           serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these
           aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available  to
           him under criminal jurisprudence,  then  the  accused  can  seek
           benefit under the orders of the court. (Vide: Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi
           v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114; Rattiram v. State  of  M.P.,
           AIR 2012 SC 1485; and Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka,  AIR  2012
           SC 3026)”.


      14.   In view  of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  force  in  the
      submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners on this count.
in Dhaneswar Mahakud & Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 2006 SC
      1727, wherein though the charge had been framed, this Court held  that
      even if the accused has not been charged with the aid  of  Section  34
      IPC and instead charged with the aid of Section 149  IPC,  he  can  be
      convicted with the aid of Section 34  IPC  when  evidence  shows  that
      there was common  intention to commit the crime and  no  prejudice  or
      injustice has been caused to the accused therein. Even the  conviction
      of the accused under Section 302 IPC simpliciter   is  permissible  if
      the court reaches the conclusion  on  the  basis  of  material  placed
      before it that injuries  caused by the accused were sufficient in  the
      ordinary course of nature to cause death and nature  of  the  injuries
      was homicidal.
      16.   If the test laid down in this case is applied to  the  facts  of
      the instant case both the petitioners can be convicted  under  Section
      302 IPC simpliciter as both of them could be convicted  under  Section
      302/34 IPC as both of them came fully armed with iron rods and both of
      them gave two blows each on the vital part of the body i.e.  head  and
      forehead which proved fatal for the deceased.  More  so,  no  question
      had been put to Dr. Daljit  Singh  Bains  (PW.1)  as  to  whether  the
      injuries caused by each of the petitioners  was  sufficient  to  cause
      death independently. It is not a fit  case  where  this  court  should
      examine the issue any further or grant any indulgence.
            The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41253
B.S. CHAUHAN, A.K. SIKRI


REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO. 191 of 2014




      Pal Singh & Anr.                                    …Appellants


                                   Versus


      State of Punjab
      …Respondent






                                  O R D E R




      Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.


      1.    This special leave petition has been filed against the  judgment
      and order dated 4.7.2013 passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and
      Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  D-14-DB  of  2005,
      maintaining the conviction and sentence of life  imprisonment  of  the
      petitioners under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860  (hereinafter
      referred to as the ‘IPC’).


      2.    Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that:
      A.    As per the  case  of  the  prosecution,  an  FIR  No.  69  dated
      14.4.2002 was lodged at 1.00 a.m. alleging that five  accused  persons
      including the present two petitioners committed the murder of Sarabjit
      Singh @ Kala. Thus, on  the  basis  of  the  complaint  the  case  was
      registered under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC in  P.S.  Sadar,  Phagwara,
      District Kapurthala.
      B.    In view thereof, the investigation ensued and  after  completion
      of the investigation, a  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  the  five
      accused persons including the present two petitioners  under  Sections
      148, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. The trial was concluded  and  the  learned
      Sessions Court convicted all the five accused persons including  these
      two petitioners vide judgment  and  order  dated  16.11.2004  for  the
      aforesaid offences and  awarded  different  sentences  including  life
      imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
      C.    Aggrieved, all  the  five  accused  persons  preferred  Criminal
      Appeals  before the High Court.  Accused Pal Singh  @  Amarjit  Singh,
      appellant in Criminal Appeal No.  D-14-DB  of  2005  died  during  the
      pendency of the  appeals.  Thus,  his  appeal  stood  abated.  Accused
      Sarabjit Singh and Gurdev Singh @ Manga  had  been  acquitted  of  the
      charges under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and 
the appeal  of  the
      present petitioners had been dismissed, and therefore their conviction
      under Section 302 IPC and the sentences awarded  by  the  trial  court
      remained intact.
            Hence, this petition.


      3.    Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
      petitioners has vehemently submitted that as one of  the  accused  has
      died and two have been acquitted  by  the  trial  court,  the  present
      petitioners had been convicted under Section 302 IPC  simpliciter  for
      which no charge had ever been framed. Therefore, the conviction of the
      petitioners deserves to be set aside.
He has also taken us through the
      judgments of the trial court as well as of  the  High  Court  and  the
      relevant evidence to show that none of the petitioners could  be  held
      exclusively responsible for the murder of Sarabjit Singh @ Kala. Thus,
      the petition deserves to be allowed.
      4.    Both the courts below had considered the evidence on record  and
      the relevant issue for us remains to consider the consequences of  not
      framing the charge properly and none else.
            Initially, the charges had been framed by the trial court  under
      Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC against all the  accused
      persons. Fresh charges were subsequently framed  under  Sections  148,
      302, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, the ultimate situation remained
      that there was charge under Sections 302, 302/149 and 120-B  IPC.  The
      trial court has convicted the present two  petitioners  and  sentenced
      them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of  Rs.2,000/-
      each.  In default of payment of fine to undergo  further  RI  for  one
      month each for the offence punishable under  Section  302  IPC.  These
      petitioners also stood convicted and sentenced to undergo   RI  for  a
      period of two years each and fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default  of
      payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one month  each
      for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.  However, they  have
      been acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC.  The High  Court
      has affirmed the conviction and sentence of  the  present  petitioners
      under Section 302 IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section  148
      IPC. The ultimate result remains that the present two petitioners  had
      been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
      5.    Whether it is legally permissible in the facts and circumstances
      of the case to convict these two petitioners  under  Section  302  IPC
      simpliciter without altering the charges by the High Court?
            In order to decide the limited issue it may be necessary for  us
      to go into some detail to the factual matrix of the case.
      6.    The post-mortem report revealed the following  injuries  on  the
      person of the deceased:
              1) Diffuse swelling 4 cm x 5 cm on the left  temporo  parietal
                 region. Clotted blood was present  in  both  the  nostrils.
                 Underlying skull bones were fractured,  laceration  of  the
                 brain matter was present. Cranial cavity was full of blood.


              2) Diffuse swelling 6 cm x 6 cm on  the  top  of  head.  Skull
                 bones  were  fractured.  Laceration  of  brain  matter  was
                 present. Cranial cavity was full of blood.
              3) Diffuse swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on the right side of the fore-
                 head. Underlying skull bones were  fractured.  The  cranial
                 cavity was full of blood.
              4) Right eye was black. Underlying bone was normal.


      7.    It is also on record that these two petitioners were having  the
      iron rods while the other three accused named in the  FIR  were  empty
      handed. The evidence on record had been  that  Pal  Singh,  petitioner
      no.1 raised an exhortation that Sarabjit Singh @ Kala be  caught  hold
      and should not escape alive and gave two iron rod blows on  his  head.
      Manjinder Singh, petitioner no.2 gave two iron rod blows on the person
      of Sarabjit Singh, out of which one hit his  forehead  and  other  his
      right cheek.  On hearing  hue  and  cry,  a  large  number  of  people
      gathered on the place of occurrence and all the five  accused  persons
      ran away.
Version of the prosecution and the  injuries  found  on  the
      person of the deceased stood proved by the evidence  of  Gurdev  Singh
      (PW.6) and Amandeep Singh (PW.11) as well as by the deposition of  Dr.
      Daljit Singh Bains (PW.1), Senior  Medical  Officer,  Civil  Hospital,
      Phagwara. The ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses  corroborates  with
      the medical evidence. As there are concurrent findings in this  regard
      we have not been invited to determine the said issue.


      8.    Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel has  placed  a  heavy
      reliance on the judgment of this Court in  Nanak  Chand  v.  State  of
      Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274,
wherein it has been  held  that  Section  149
      IPC creates a specific offence but Section 34 IPC does not,  and  they
      both are separate and distinguishable.  
Section  149  IPC  creates  an
      offence punishable, but  it  depends  on  the  offence  of  which  the
      offender  is  by  that  section  made  guilty.  Therefore,   for   the
      appropriate punishment section must be read with it. 
Section  34  does
      not, however, create  any  specific  offence  and  there  is  a  clear
      distinction between the provisions of Sections 34 and 149 IPC and  the
      said two sections are not to be confused.  
The  principal  element  in
      Section 34  IPC  is  the  common  intention  to  commit  a  crime.  In
      furtherance of the common  intention  several  acts  may  be  done  by
      several persons resulting in the commission of that  crime.   In  that
      situation, Section 34 provides that each one of them would  be  liable
      for that crime in the same manner as if all the acts resulting in that
      crime had been done by him alone.


      9.    In Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955  SC  419,  this
      Court examined a case where the charge had  been  framed  against  the
      accused under Sections 147, 307/149 and 302/149  IPC,  and  there  had
      been no direct and individual charge against any of  the  accused  for
      specific offence under Sections 307 and 302 IPC,  though  the  accused
      had been convicted under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. The court  had  set
      aside their conviction as no specific charge had been  framed  against
      any of the accused for which they had been convicted.


      10.    As there were doubts about the  conflict/correctness  of  these
      two judgments, the matter was  decided  by  a  Constitution  Bench  in
      Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956  SC  116,
      and the court came to the following conclusions:
           “Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code  provide  for
           criminal liability  viewed  from  different  angles  as  regards
           actual participants, accessories and men actuated  by  a  common
           object or a common intention; and the charge is a rolled-up  one
           involving the direct liability and  the  constructive  liability
           without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to
           be made constructively liable.
                 In such a situation, the absence of a charge under  one  or
           other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence
           cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and  before  a  conviction
           for the substantive offence; without a charge can be set  aside,
           prejudice will have to be made out. In most of the cases of this
           kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to  who  was
           primarily responsible  for  the  act  which  brought  about  the
           offence and such evidence is of course relevant.


                       xx         xx         xx


                  This judgment should not be understood by the subordinate
           courts as sanctioning a deliberate disobedience to the mandatory
           requirements of the Code, or as giving any  license  to  proceed
           with trials without an appropriate charge. The omission to frame
           a charge is a grave defect  and  should  be  vigilantly  guarded
           against. In some cases, it may be so serious that by  itself  it
           would vitiate a trial and render it illegal,  prejudice  to  the
           accused being taken for granted.


                 In the main, the provisions of section 535 would apply  to
           cases of inadvertence to frame a charge induced  by  the  belief
           that  the  matter  on  record  is  sufficient  to  warrant   the
           conviction   for   a   particular   offence   without    express
           specification, and where the facts  proved  by  the  prosecution
           constitute a separate and distinct offence but closely  relevant
           to and springing out of the same set of facts connected with the
           one charged.”




      11.   In Dhari & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2013 SC 308, this
      Court re-considered the issue whether the appellants therein could  be
      convicted under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC, in the event that  the  High
      Court had convicted three persons among the accused and the number  of
      convicts has thus remained less than 5 which is in fact  necessary  to
      form an unlawful assembly as described under  Section  141  IPC.  This
      Court considered the earlier judgments  in  Amar  Singh  v.  State  of
      Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 826; Nagamalleswara Rao (K) v. State of A.P.,  AIR
      1991 SC 1075, Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P., AIR  1991  SC  2214;
      and Mohd. Ankoos v. Pubic Prosecutor, AIR 2010 SC 566, and came to the
      conclusion that in a case where the prosecution fails to   prove  that
      the number of members of an unlawful assembly are 5 or more, the court
      can simply convict the guilty person
      with the aid of Section  34  IPC,  provided  that  there  is  adequate
      evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention
      to commit the crime in question. (See also:  Jivan  Lal  v.  State  of
      M.P.,(1997) 9 SCC 119; Hamlet v. State of Kerala, AIR  2003  SC  3682;
      Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326; Gurpreet Singh v. State
      of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 191; and S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman &  Ors.,
      AIR 2013 SC 840).
      12.   In Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar,  AIR  2010  SC  3786,  this
      Court considered the issue and held:
           “Therefore, … unless the  convict  is  able  to  establish  that
           defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice  to  him
           and that he was not informed  as  to  what  was  the  real  case
           against him and that he could not defend  himself  properly,  no
           interference is  required  on  mere  technicalities.  Conviction
           order in fact is to be tested on  the  touchstone  of  prejudice
           theory.”


      13.   In Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840, this Court
      considered the similar issue and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the
      accused has to satisfy the court  that  if  there  is  any  defect  in
      framing the  charge  it  has  prejudiced  the  cause  of  the  accused
      resulting in failure of justice.  It is only in that  eventuality  the
      court may interfere.  The Court elaborated the law as under:
           “The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it
           cannot be covered under Sections  464/465  CrPC,  which  provide
           that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed  to
           be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that
           there  was  some  irregularity  or  omission  or  misjoinder  of
           charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was
           also, as a consequence, a failure  of  justice.  In  determining
           whether any error,  omission  or  irregularity  in  framing  the
           relevant charges, has led to a failure  of  justice,  the  court
           must have regard to whether an objection could have been  raised
           at an earlier stage during the proceedings or not. While judging
           the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in  mind
           that every accused has a right to a  fair  trial,  where  he  is
           aware of what he is being tried for and where the  facts  sought
           to be established against him, are explained to him  fairly  and
           clearly, and further, where he is given a full and  fair  chance
           to defend himself against the said charge(s).
                 “Failure of justice” is  an  extremely  pliable  or  facile
           expression, which can be made to fit into any situation  in  any
           case. The court must endeavour to find the truth. There would be
           “failure of justice”; not only by unjust conviction, but also by
           acquittal of the guilty,  as  a  result  of  unjust  failure  to
           produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused
           have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded,  but  they  should
           not be overemphasised to  the  extent  of  forgetting  that  the
           victims also have rights. It has to be shown  that  the  accused
           has suffered some disability or  detriment  in  respect  of  the
           protections  available  to  him  under   the   Indian   criminal
           jurisprudence. “Prejudice” is incapable of being interpreted  in
           its generic sense and applied  to  criminal  jurisprudence.  The
           plea of prejudice has to be  in  relation  to  investigation  or
           trial, and not with respect to  matters  falling  outside  their
           scope. Once the accused is able to  show  that  there  has  been
           serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these
           aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available  to
           him under criminal jurisprudence,  then  the  accused  can  seek
           benefit under the orders of the court. (Vide: Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi
           v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114; Rattiram v. State  of  M.P.,
           AIR 2012 SC 1485; and Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka,  AIR  2012
           SC 3026)”.


      14.   In view  of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  force  in  the
      submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners on this count.
      15.   Shri Pramod Swarup has also placed reliance on the  judgment  of
      this Court in Dhaneswar Mahakud & Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 2006 SC
      1727, wherein though the charge had been framed, this Court held  that
      even if the accused has not been charged with the aid  of  Section  34
      IPC and instead charged with the aid of Section 149  IPC,  he  can  be
      convicted with the aid of Section 34  IPC  when  evidence  shows  that
      there was common  intention to commit the crime and  no  prejudice  or
      injustice has been caused to the accused therein. Even the  conviction
      of the accused under Section 302 IPC simpliciter   is  permissible  if
      the court reaches the conclusion  on  the  basis  of  material  placed
      before it that injuries  caused by the accused were sufficient in  the
      ordinary course of nature to cause death and nature  of  the  injuries
      was homicidal.
      16.   If the test laid down in this case is applied to  the  facts  of
      the instant case both the petitioners can be convicted  under  Section
      302 IPC simpliciter as both of them could be convicted  under  Section
      302/34 IPC as both of them came fully armed with iron rods and both of
      them gave two blows each on the vital part of the body i.e.  head  and
      forehead which proved fatal for the deceased.  More  so,  no  question
      had been put to Dr. Daljit  Singh  Bains  (PW.1)  as  to  whether  the
      injuries caused by each of the petitioners  was  sufficient  to  cause
      death independently. It is not a fit  case  where  this  court  should
      examine the issue any further or grant any indulgence.
            The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.


                                  …………………………….J.
                                  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)





                                  ………………………………...J.
                                  (A.K. SIKRI)
      New Delhi,
      February 25, 2014




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.