Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions and life sentences of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, but altered accused No.3’s conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed ten years’ imprisonment. His participation with a stone established knowledge of the likelihood of death, but the evidence did not establish that he shared the others’ intention to murder.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness and medical evidence justified the concurrent murder convictions.
- Whether accused No.3 shared a common intention to murder, or was instead guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of knowledge.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court affirmed the convictions of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 on the eyewitness and medical evidence. For accused No.3, presence and family relationship could not substitute for evidence of shared intention to murder; his role required separate assessment. (¶¶ 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32)
- Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860Accused No.3’s use of a stone to strike the head imputed knowledge that death was likely. Because the evidence did not establish intention to murder or the requisite common intention, the Court convicted him under this provision and imposed ten years’ imprisonment. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Held
- After examining the eyewitness evidence, the Court agreed with the trial court and High Court that their appreciation of the evidence supported the convictions of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. Minor variations in the accounts did not displace the consistent evidence of the assault. Their convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 and life sentences were affirmed. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 32)
- The courts below had not adequately distinguished accused No.3’s role and had mechanically inferred common intention from his presence and family relationship with the other accused. Unlike the others, he never wielded the axe; he picked up a stone at the scene and joined after the assault had begun. On the cumulative evidence, the prosecution did not establish that he shared the others’ intention to murder. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31)
- The absence of proved common intention to murder did not absolve accused No.3 of his own assault. Hitting the deceased’s head with a stone carried knowledge that death was likely. His conviction was therefore altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 to Section 304 Part II, with ten years’ imprisonment. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Result
Appeal dismissed for accused Nos.1, 2 and 4; their convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentences upheld. Appeal allowed to the extent of altering accused No.3’s conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. Pending applications disposed of.