Case Note & Summary
Background: The case arose from two criminal appeals against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.373 of 2011, convicting both appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants, original accused No.1 and No.2, challenged their conviction, while the State defended the trial court's decision. Facts: On 13.5.2011, at about 9:00-9:15 p.m., the deceased Rajesh Lakhote, along with his brother Ankush (PW4) and friends, went to a pan kiosk after consuming liquor. Accused Appukhan (Appu) was sitting nearby and intervened in their conversation about the cost of liquor. A quarrel ensued. Accused Appu beat Ankush with a wooden plank and then called accused Mohd. Ayub, saying 'Yeh log maar rahe hai' (these persons are beating). Mohd. Ayub arrived with a knife and stabbed Rajesh on the chest/abdomen. Rajesh was taken to hospital and declared dead. Ankush lodged an FIR at Kuhi Police Station. Investigation led to recovery of the wooden plank and knife based on confessional statements. The trial court convicted both under Section 302, but acquitted them under Section 324 read with 34 IPC for the injury to another person. Legal Issues: The main questions were: (1) Whether accused No.1 shared common intention with accused No.2 to cause death, justifying conviction under Section 302/34; (2) Whether the act of accused No.2 amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder given the sudden quarrel. Arguments: Appellants' counsel argued that the trial court erred in convicting accused No.1 under Section 302 as there was no common intention; accused No.2 should be convicted under Section 304-I, as he had knowledge but no intention to kill. The State contended that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's findings. Court's Analysis: The High Court examined the evidence of eyewitnesses Ankush (PW4) and Rinku (PW7), which consistently showed that accused Appu did not directly participate in the stabbing. He merely called accused Mohd. Ayub, who inflicted the fatal blow. There was no prior meeting of minds or shared plan to kill. Therefore, the essential ingredient of common intention under Section 34 was missing. Regarding accused No.2, the court noted the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel with no prior enmity. Although the knife was a dangerous weapon and the accused knew the act was likely to cause death, there was no intention to kill. Hence, the offence fell under Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), not Section 302. Decision: The court allowed the appeal of accused No.1, acquitting him of the charge under Section 302. The appeal of accused No.2 was partly allowed: his conviction under Section 302 was altered to Section 304-I, and he was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000, with set-off for the period already undergone. The fine and default sentence were maintained.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Requirement of meeting of minds - Quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased group; accused No.1 called accused No.2 who came with knife and stabbed deceased; no evidence that accused No.1 shared intention to cause death - Held: Accused No.1 entitled to acquittal for murder as no common intention proved. (Paras 13-14) B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Section 304-I Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sudden quarrel provocation - Accused No.2 inflicted a knife blow on deceased's abdomen in a sudden fight without premeditation - Court held that although the accused knew the act was likely to cause death, there was no intention to cause death, thus offence falls under Section 304 Part I, not murder. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified against accused No.1 in the absence of common intention, and whether the act of accused No.2 constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I IPC.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2017 allowed; appellant Appukhan acquitted of Section 302 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2017 partly allowed; conviction of Mohd. Ayub altered from Section 302 to Section 304-I IPC, sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 maintained; set off given for period already undergone; accused No.2 to surrender to undergo remaining sentence.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires meeting of minds
- mere presence or prior quarrel does not prove shared intention to kill
- in sudden quarrel without premeditation if accused had knowledge but no intention to cause death offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC
