Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Virender, who was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Krishan Kumar. The prosecution case was that on the intervening night of 6/7 November 1999, the deceased and his brother Suresh Kumar (PW-14) were irrigating their field. When the deceased went to check water flow, he was attacked by three accused: Hawa Singh with an axe, Satpal with a sickle, and the appellant Virender with a lathi. The first informant and his uncle Jugal Kishore (PW-15) witnessed the incident. The trial court and High Court convicted all three. The appellant alone appealed. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the fatal injuries were five incised wounds caused by sharp weapons, while the appellant's lathi blow caused only a lacerated wound on the knee and an abrasion, which could have resulted from a fall. The eyewitnesses' testimony that the appellant also hit the deceased on the head was proved to be an improvement in cross-examination. The Court noted that the appellant had no motive, no prior enmity, and was not shown to be a friend or relative of the other accused. Applying the principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or development of common intention on the spot. The conviction was based on assumptions and conjectures. The appellant, who had already served over five years, was acquitted and his bail bonds discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - The prosecution must prove that the criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention of all accused; mere presence or minor injury not sufficient to infer common intention - Held that where the appellant had no motive, no prior enmity, and was not a friend or relative of co-accused, and the fatal injuries were caused by co-accused with sharp weapons, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC (Paras 7-13). B) Evidence - Improvement in Testimony - Credibility of Witnesses - Where witnesses in cross-examination admit that statements about appellant's assault on head were improvements, such evidence must be excluded - Held that exclusion of improvements leaves no reliable evidence of appellant's overt act (Para 10). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - When evidence against an accused is shaky and insufficient, benefit of doubt must be given - Held that the appellant is entitled to acquittal as prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, who allegedly gave a lathi blow, can be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC when the fatal injuries were caused by co-accused with sharp weapons and there is no evidence of common intention or motive.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant, and acquitted him of all charges. The appellant, who was on bail, need not be arrested, and his bail bonds were discharged.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires proof of prior meeting of minds or development on spot
- absence of motive weakens inference of common intention
- benefit of doubt must be given when evidence is shaky
