Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case — Reinstates Life Imprisonment for Accused. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not established as the accused shared common intention to kill.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had altered the conviction of the accused from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The incident occurred on March 6, 1977, when the deceased, Sukhuwa, was returning from a Holi festival with his sons and brother. They were attacked by the accused, who were armed with lathis, resulting in fatal injuries to Sukhuwa. The post-mortem revealed multiple serious injuries, and the doctor confirmed that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. The sessions court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, the High Court accepted the evidence but concluded that the accused lacked the intention to kill, which the Supreme Court found to be a manifest error. The Supreme Court emphasized that the common intention to kill could be inferred from the circumstances of the attack, including the fact that the deceased and his companions were unarmed and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and directed the accused to be taken into custody to serve their sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - The court found that the accused shared a common intention to kill the deceased as they attacked him with lathis, causing fatal injuries. The High Court's conclusion of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was deemed erroneous, leading to the reinstatement of the conviction under Section 302 IPC. Held that the circumstances indicated a clear intent to kill (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the accused shared common intention to cause death or if the offence was one under section 304, part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Common intention
  • Culpable homicide
  • Evidence evaluation
  • Intent to kill
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1997 LawText (SC) (04) 66

1997-04-11

K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

STATE OF U.P.

LAKHAN & ORS.

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction alteration.

Remedy Sought

State of U.P. sought to reinstate the original conviction of the accused.

Filing Reason

The High Court altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.

Previous Decisions

The sessions court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC.

Issues

Common intention to kill Nature of the offence under IPC

Submissions/Arguments

The prosecution argued that the accused had a common intention to kill. The defense contended that the accused lacked motive and intention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstances of the attack indicated a common intention to kill, justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The mere fact that extensive damage has not been caused to the deceased does not establish that the offence is not one of under punishable under section 302. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in converting the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 302 part II, I.P.C.

Procedural History

The case originated from the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated February 18, 1991, which altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR in Family Inheritance Dispute Under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS — Pending Civil Suit Renders Criminal Proceedings an Abuse of Process. The court held that when a civil suit for partition is already pending ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes FIR in Cheating Case Due to Lack of Ingredients of Offence. Allegations of Cheating Fail as Petitioner Acted as Land Aggregator, Not Owner, Under IPC Sections 406 and 420.