Common Intention Cannot Be Inferred Mechanically Merely Based On Presence Of Accused Near Crime Scene : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently, while affirming the life imprisonment of three accused/appellants for murder, modified the sentence of another accused (A3) to culpable homicide and sentenced him to ten years. The Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha opined that the Trial and the High Court convicted A3 based on Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He...
The Supreme Court recently, while affirming the life imprisonment of three accused/appellants for murder, modified the sentence of another accused (A3) to culpable homicide and sentenced him to ten years.
The Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha opined that the Trial and the High Court convicted A3 based on Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was present near the scene of offence and had familial relations with the other accused. However, the Court noted that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder. Thus, the Court opined that the inference was drawn mechanically under Section 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused.
The brief facts of the case are such that the accused, 1 to 4, and the deceased, come from the same village. Further, accused persons belong to the same family. As per the prosecution's stance, the sister of the deceased and the wife of A-4 were political aspirants. They contested the Gram Panchayat elections. In the elections, the deceased's sister succeeded, and the wife of A-4 lost, resulting in animosity between the two groups. This eventually led to the murder of the deceased.
At the outset, the Court drew attention to the evidence against A3. The Court noted that, as per the Chargesheet, A3 used a stone to hit the deceased on the head. However, no further details have been provided., the Court said.
The Court also marked that while the axe was used by other accused to assault the deceased, A3 never took the axe.
“The cumulative circumstances in which A-3 was seen participating in the crime would clearly indicate that he had no intention to commit murder of the deceased for two clear reasons. Firstly, while every other accused took the axe used by A1 initially and contributed to the assault with this weapon, A-3 did not wield the axe at any point of time. Secondly, A-3 only had a stone in his hand, and in fact, some of the witnesses said that he merely threatened in case they seek to intervene and prevent the assault.,” the Court explained.
In view of this, the Apex Court held that A-3 did not share a common intention to commit the murder. However, considering A3's participation in the assault, the Court held him liable for culpable homicide. Reasoning this, the Court said that A-3 should have known that using a stone to hit the head of the deceased is likely to cause death.
Thus, while the Court upheld the conviction of other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and dismissed their Criminal Appeal, it acquitted the A3.
“We acquit A-3 of the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and convict him under Section 304 Part II and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: VELTHEPU SRINIVAS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA)., Diary Number 18111 / 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 94