Case Note & Summary
The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted by the Fast Track Court No.X, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.83/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that on 14.8.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 were seen proceeding towards the house of the complainant Linga Reddy. Accused No.1 was the son of the complainant's maternal aunt. On the previous day, 13.8.2008, accused No.1 had come to the complainant's house along with CW.2-Srinivasa and had lunch. On 14.8.2008, accused No.1 allegedly assaulted the deceased Lakshmi (complainant's wife) with a knife, and accused No.2 was present at the scene. The prosecution alleged that both accused shared common intention to commit murder. The trial court convicted both accused. Accused No.2 appealed. The High Court examined the evidence and found that there was no evidence to show that accused No.2 had any prior meeting of mind with accused No.1 or that he participated in the assault. The only evidence against accused No.2 was his presence at the scene and his subsequent conduct of fleeing. The court held that mere presence or subsequent conduct is not sufficient to prove common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court also noted that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of accused No.2, and acquitted him.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appeal challenged conviction of accused No.2 for murder with common intention. The court held that mere presence at the scene or subsequent conduct is insufficient to prove common intention; there must be evidence of prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan. Since the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.2 shared the intention of accused No.1 to cause death, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. Any missing link entitles the accused to benefit of doubt. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable in the absence of evidence to prove common intention.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of accused No.2 set aside. Accused No.2 acquitted.
Law Points
- Common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- Circumstantial evidence
- Acquittal
