2004 (12) TMI 724 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Credibility of the eyewitnesses.
3. Applicability of Section 34 IPC regarding common intention.
4. Validity of the dying declaration.
5. Identification of the accused in low light conditions.
6. Hypothetical plea regarding the possibility of saving the deceased with better medical treatment.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellant's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which upheld his conviction for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's version was that the appellant, along with his co-accused Afzal, attacked the deceased, resulting in his death. The trial court found both accused guilty, and the High Court affirmed this conviction.

2. Credibility of the eyewitnesses:
The appellant's counsel argued that the eyewitnesses were partisan, being friends and relatives of the deceased, and their evidence did not inspire confidence. However, the court held that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It was noted that a close relation would not typically implicate an innocent person falsely. The court cited precedents, including Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab and Masalti v. State of U.P., to support the view that the evidence of related witnesses should not be mechanically rejected.

3. Applicability of Section 34 IPC regarding common intention:
The court explained that Section 34 IPC is based on the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act. It requires proof of common intention, which can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. The court found that the appellant's act of restraining the deceased while the co-accused inflicted knife blows demonstrated a common intention to commit the crime. The court cited several cases, including Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, to elucidate the principles governing Section 34 IPC.

4. Validity of the dying declaration:
The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was deemed clear and credible. The court noted that the appellant did not dispute the cause of death as per the postmortem report. The court held that the hypothetical plea regarding the possibility of saving the deceased with better treatment did not dilute the charge of murder, referencing Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC.

5. Identification of the accused in low light conditions:
The appellant's counsel contended that the identification of the accused was not possible due to insufficient light. However, the court found that the occurrence took place near a mosque and houses with sufficient light from the moon and electric poles. The court noted that a known person could be identified even with minimal light. The evidence of the eyewitnesses (PWs 3 to 5) was consistent and corroborated the identification.

6. Hypothetical plea regarding the possibility of saving the deceased with better medical treatment:
The appellant's counsel argued that the deceased could have been saved with proper medical treatment. The court dismissed this plea, stating that the cause of death due to injuries inflicted by the accused was established. The court emphasized that the hypothetical possibility of saving the deceased did not negate the charge of murder.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was rightly held guilty and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts. The court highlighted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible, the dying declaration was valid, and the identification of the accused was possible under the given circumstances. The principles of joint liability and common intention under Section 34 IPC were correctly applied.