Delve into the recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Criminal Appeal No. 871/2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 872/2022, along with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 321/2022. The appeals involved Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu (appellant) versus The State (respondent). The Court modified the convictions under IPC Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 for appellant No. 2, while appellant No. 1’s conviction was set aside due to lack of evidence under Section 34 of the IPC. This blog provides insights into the legal implications and reasoning behind the Court’s decision.
Facts
- PW-19 and other witnesses consumed liquor with the deceased and accused at the place of occurrence.
- Deceased was intoxicated as per postmortem report.
- Eye witnesses turned hostile except PW-19.
- PW-6 and PW-32 secured the body and sent it for postmortem.
- First Information Report was based on the statement of PW-19.
- PW-31 informed PW-20 over phone who then informed the police.
- Homicidal death of the deceased was due to a single shot fired by A1.
- A1 handed over the gun to A2, asked him to shoot the deceased, then took the gun back and shot the deceased.
- High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence from Trial Court.
- The Trial Court accepted the evidence of PW-19 and PW-20.
- PW-20 was not an eyewitness.
- Conviction was based on evidence and recovery made.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: State vs. Environmental Conservation Society
Arguments
- Senior Counsel for Appellant No.1 and Appellant No.2 argued that the presence of PW-19 is questionable.
- CDR records were used by both Courts to support the presence of PW-19.
- Evidence of PW-32 and PW-33 also corroborated the presence of PW-19 as the key witness.
- High Court’s judgment, based on the evidence of PW-19, PW-32, and PW-33, was considered justified as no perversity was found.
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder was upheld due to the use of a gun and the accused fleeing the scene.
Also Read: Judicial Review in Recruitment Processes
Analysis
- PW-19’s conduct was considered unnatural by the court.
- Error found in not applying Section 34 of the IPC properly to PW-19, as mere presence does not attribute the alleged offense.
- A1 attempted to shoot the deceased.
- All parties gathered for celebrating PW-24’s birthday.
- No material to implicate A2 under Section 34 of the IPC.
- Case considered under Section 304 Part I IPC as all were under alcohol influence and the incident happened at the spur of the moment with no premeditation.
- A2 was not involved in instigating A1 to commit the offense.
- A1 handed the gun to A2 but then took it back and shot the deceased.
- Principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 found not applicable to A2.
- The evidence showed a quarrel between A2 and the deceased.
- PW-19 did not interfere or make a complaint immediately after the first shot was fired.
- The reason for A1 shooting the deceased was the quarrel between A2 and the deceased.
- The fact that A1 was carrying the weapon without any intention to commit an offence is considered.
- The occurrence where A1, a young man, was involved was not premeditated.
- The quarrel between A2 and the deceased was the trigger for the occurrence.
- It is noted that the weapon was not brought with the purpose of committing an offence.
- The judgement places the case under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, as A1’s actions amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- A1’s personal circumstances are taken into account – married with a sixteen-year-old daughter and a bedridden father.
- A1 has already served eight years and ten months of actual incarceration.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in State vs. Union Territory Jurisdiction Case
Decision
- Conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act upheld.
- Appeal filed by A2 (Crl. No.871/2022) allowed, setting aside conviction and sentence by High Court and Trial Court.
- Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not involved in any other case.
- Writ Petition (Crl.) No.321/2022 closed, has undergone about ten years and two months.
- Both sentences being concurrent, A1 to be released.
- Conviction for offences under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part 1 IPC, sentence modified to time already served.
- Question of law left open.
- Appeal filed by A1 (Crl. A. No.872/2022) allowed in part.
Case Title: YOGESH @ SONU Vs. THE STATE (2024 INSC 305)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000871-000871 / 2022
