2006 (9) TMI 612 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
3. Conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Conviction under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.
5. Enhancement of sentence.
6. Dying declaration and its evidentiary value.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
The High Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court held each of the accused persons guilty for the offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and the State's appeals were allowed, except for two accused who had died during the pendency of the appeals.

2. Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC:
The trial court had convicted accused No. 1 Sham Shankar Kankaria under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing him to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court, however, found this conviction inadequate and substituted it with a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the appropriate provision for conviction should be Section 304 Part I IPC, given the circumstances and the nature of the weapon used. The custodial sentence was enhanced to ten years.

3. Conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC:
The trial court convicted five accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court upheld these convictions and the corresponding sentences, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment as maintained by the High Court.

4. Conviction under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC:
All six accused were convicted under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial court, with a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court maintained these convictions and sentences.

5. Enhancement of Sentence:
The State had appealed for enhancement of the sentence and for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court, while modifying the High Court's judgment, enhanced the sentence of accused No. 1 under Section 304 Part I IPC to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. For the other accused, the sentences under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC were maintained.

6. Dying Declaration and its Evidentiary Value:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the dying declaration, noting that it is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court highlighted that a dying declaration must inspire full confidence and be free from any influence or imagination. The Court found the dying declaration in this case to be trustworthy and credible, forming a valid basis for conviction. The Court reiterated that a dying declaration could be the sole basis for conviction if it is coherent, consistent, and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the conviction of accused No. 1 to Section 304 Part I IPC with a ten-year custodial sentence. The convictions and sentences under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC for the other accused were upheld. The Court dismissed the criticism of the prosecution witnesses and found no material to suggest false implication by the relatives of the deceased. The Court concluded that Section 34 IPC did not apply to the offense under Section 304 Part I IPC, as there was no common intention to cause the death of the deceased.