Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No 1244/2011, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein – Jad Bai and has acquitted her for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of common intention against her, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
According to the complainant after sometime, she heard the voice of crying/scream of her husband and she immediately rushed to the house of her Jeth – accused No.1 – Sekadiya and she saw in the light of electricity that accused No.3 – Jethani (wife of accused No.1 – Sekadiya) had caught hold her husband – Vesta and accused No.1 assaulted her husband by Axe on the head, due to which Vesta fell down.
The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore all of them claimed to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent herein – Jad Bai, original accused No.3, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal. It is submitted that therefore the presence of the respondent at the place of incident has been established and according to her deposition, the respondent caught hold of the deceased and her husband – original accused No.1 caused injuries on the deceased.
4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Major Singh v.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
It is vehemently submitted that from her deposition, it can be seen that she had never seen original accused No.1 causing injuries on the body of the deceased.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has acquitted the respondent – original accused No.3 by observing and holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of common intention. It is the case on behalf of the accused that PW1 was not present at the time when the original accused No.1 caused injuries on the deceased. Given the aforesaid position, we are of the view that Section 34 of the IPC i.e., common intention, is clearly attracted in the case of Gurbachan Singh, whose case cannot be distinguished, so as to exclude him as one who did not share common intention with Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, and Manjit Singh.
Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention.” Now so far as the decisions relying upon on behalf of the respondent in the cases of Mukesh (supra) and Ramashish Yadav (supra) are concerned, on facts and in light of the deposition of PW1 – eyewitness and that she has specifically stated that the respondent caught hold of the deceased, the said decisions shall not be of any assistance to the respondent.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
The impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No 1244/2011, acquitting the respondent herein – original accused No.3 for the offences punishable under section 302 with the aid of section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No 204/2010, convicting the respondent herein – original accused No.3 for the offences punishable under section 302 with the aid of section 34 of the IPC is hereby restored.
The instant appeal is allowed accordingly.
Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JAD BAI, (2023 INSC 160)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000586-000586 / 2023
