OAK) Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Sentencing of Appellant for Life Imprisonment Under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC

The correctness of the judgment and order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and that of the High Court affirming the same is the subject-matter of examination in this appeal.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-central-government-notification-on-trading-and-commercial-establishments-implications-for-employees/

Upon seeing the said four persons, he and his brother Ram Kishore shouted for help but before any help could arrive, the above four persons gheraoed Ram Kishore and gave brutal blows to him from lathis and iron rod.

Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the trial court has not considered any evidence to record finding with regard to “common intention” on part of the appellant and, therefore, Section 34 IPC cannot be applied so as to convict him. In the case at hand, it is clearly stated in the FIR and also categorically stated by Balram (PW-1) that Rajaram, Ram Naresh and Jogendra had lathis in their hands and Virender had iron rod in his hands.

Thus, according to the findings of the trial court all the four accused persons had come to the place of occurrence together armed with weapons, assaulted the deceased Ram Kishore simultaneously and left the place together.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-appellants-right-to-retroactive-consent-to-establish-in-gurgaon-project/

For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or prearranged plan.

Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence.

State of Punjab to the effect that a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC unless the present accused has done some act in furtherance thereof is of no assistance to the appellant as it is writ large on record as per the evidence that the appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and giving blows to the deceased Ram Kishore together with the other accused persons.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-in-assault-case-involving-blood-stains-evidence/

J. (ABHAY S.

Case Title: RAM NARESH Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-003577-003577 / 2023

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *