Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Murder Case — Upholds Conviction Under IPC. The court found sufficient evidence of common intention between the accused in the murder of the deceased, justifying the conviction under Section 34 IPC.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by Damodar against his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court had convicted him and his co-accused, Ravindra Singh, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed this conviction. The incident occurred on 21st July 1979, when the deceased, Guru Narayan, was shot by Ravindra Singh at the exhortation of Damodar. The deceased was returning home with his wife and brother-in-law when the attack occurred. The first information report was lodged promptly, and medical evidence corroborated the cause of death. The court noted that the testimonies of the witnesses were credible and consistent. The appellant argued that mere exhortation was insufficient for a conviction under Section 34 IPC, claiming a lack of prior agreement between the accused. However, the court found that the facts indicated a clear common intention to commit murder, as both parties had a history of animosity. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and ordering the appellant to serve his sentence after cancelling his bail. The judgment underscored the importance of common intention in joint criminal acts, particularly in murder cases.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Exhortation and Common Intention - Application of Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - The court held that the appellant's exhortation to his co-accused to fire at the deceased established common intention, justifying the conviction under Section 34 IPC. The evidence showed that the appellant was actively involved in the commission of the crime, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant's exhortation constituted sufficient grounds for conviction under Section 34 IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant. The court ordered the cancellation of the appellant's bail and directed his immediate custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Law Points

  • Exhortation
  • Common intention
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Conviction
  • Murder
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2004 LawText (SC) (11) 52

Appeal (crl.) 1129 of 1999

2004-11-02

B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar

Damodar

State of U.P.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to overturn his conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed after the High Court affirmed the trial court's conviction.

Previous Decisions

The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused, which was upheld by the High Court.

Issues

Sufficiency of exhortation for conviction under Section 34 IPC Credibility of witness testimonies

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant contended that exhortation alone was insufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC. The prosecution argued that the appellant's exhortation demonstrated common intention to commit murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that exhortation by one accused to another can establish common intention under Section 34 IPC, justifying a conviction for murder.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant herein, along with Ravindra Singh (co-accused) was put up for trial before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun. The facts of the case disclose that murders have taken place on both sides. If these facts cannot be disputed, there can be no doubt about the application of Section 34 IPC.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused on 16th July 1980. The High Court affirmed the conviction on 28th July 1999. The appellant was granted special leave to appeal, leading to this Supreme Court judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Delhi High Court Allows Arbitration Against Guarantors Despite Moratorium Under Section 96 of IBC — Moratorium Does Not Extend to Co-Guarantors Not Covered by NCLT Orders. The court held that the moratorium under Section 96 is debt-centric and pers...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Government Resolution Reducing Retirement Age of Teachers from 62 to 60 Years. Fixing Retirement Age is a Policy Matter within State's Exclusive Domain and Pending Proposals Not Approved Before Resolution Do Not Entitle Teac...