Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal appeal filed by the original informant, son of the deceased, challenging the High Court's judgment acquitting accused No.2 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case involved an incident on 21.04.1982 where accused No.1 shot the deceased with a country-made pistol after accused No.2 exhorted him to do so, with both accused fleeing thereafter. The FIR was lodged by Omkar Singh, and the investigation led to a chargesheet against both accused. The trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and accused No.2 under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court confirmed accused No.1's conviction but acquitted accused No.2, reasoning that the eyewitnesses only assigned him the role of exhortation, suggesting possible exaggeration and false implication due to a property dispute. The core legal issue was whether the High Court erred in acquitting accused No.2 despite consistent eyewitness testimony establishing his presence and role. The appellant argued that accused No.2 was named in the FIR, all three eyewitnesses consistently testified to his exhortation, and his presence was proven, warranting conviction under Section 34 IPC. The State supported the appellant, while the respondent contended that the High Court gave cogent reasons for acquittal and no interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, noting that accused No.2 was named in the FIR and all three eyewitnesses were found reliable by the High Court itself. The court held that once the High Court confirmed accused No.1's conviction based on these witnesses, it should have similarly convicted accused No.2, as exhortation indicates common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court found the High Court's acquittal based on surmises and conjectures contrary to the evidence, especially since motive was established. The decision set aside the impugned judgment, restored accused No.2's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC, and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused No.2 was acquitted by High Court despite eyewitnesses naming him and assigning role of exhortation - Supreme Court held that once presence and specific role of exhortation are established, common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred, and acquittal based on surmises is erroneous - High Court's decision reversed, conviction under Section 302/34 IPC restored (Paras 11-12.2). B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate Review - Evidence Appreciation - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 34 - High Court acquitted accused No.2 doubting his role as only exhortation, while confirming conviction of accused No.1 based on same eyewitnesses - Supreme Court held that when eyewitnesses are found reliable and trustworthy, their consistent testimony must be accepted in full, and acquittal on conjectural grounds is unsustainable - Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside (Paras 12-12.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting accused No.2 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC despite consistent eyewitness testimony assigning him the role of exhortation and establishing his presence and common intention
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court acquitting accused No.2, and restored the conviction of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from exhortation
- presence at crime scene
- and established motive
- Section 302 IPC applies to murder
- appellate court should not acquit based on surmises when evidence is consistent and reliable
