Case Note & Summary
The case involved two appellants convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 9th August 1990, when the appellants attacked Sukhbir, the victim, due to ongoing ill-feelings stemming from a land dispute. Sukhbir and his brother were ambushed while returning from Palwal, leading to severe injuries inflicted by the appellants using a lathi and a gandasa. The trial court sentenced both appellants to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court, although the sentence for the second appellant was reduced to seven years. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimonies of the injured witness and his brother, and found no material contradictions. However, it raised doubts about the second appellant's common intention to commit murder, leading to the conclusion that he could not be held equally culpable. Consequently, the conviction of the second appellant was set aside, while the conviction of the first appellant was affirmed, albeit with a reduced sentence of eight years due to his offer to pay compensation to the victim. The court directed that the compensation amount be forwarded to the injured party after verifying his identity.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Common Intention - Conviction under Section 307 IPC - The court found that the second appellant did not share common intention with the first appellant as the evidence did not establish a coordinated attack. The conviction of the second appellant was set aside, while the conviction of the first appellant was affirmed with a reduced sentence due to his willingness to pay compensation. Held that the evidence did not support a finding of common intention (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appellant shared common intention with the first appellant in the commission of the crime.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed in part; the conviction of the second appellant was set aside, while the conviction of the first appellant was affirmed with a reduced sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment instead of ten years.
Law Points
- Attempt to murder
- Common intention
- Conviction
- Sentence reduction
- Compensation
