9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. - Evaluation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court. - Consideration of the presence and credibility of eyewitnesses. - Analysis of the delay in the special report reaching the Magistrate. - Examination of the arrest of one of the accused and its validity. - Determination of common intention among the accused. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against the conviction of three individuals under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge initially acquitted the accused, but the State's appeal led to their conviction by the High Court. The defense counsel argued extensively, challenging the evaluation of evidence. The High Court found the Sessions Judge's acquittal unreasonable, emphasizing the trivial nature of the reasons provided for rejection. The credibility of eyewitnesses, described as "chance witnesses," was a key point of contention. The judgment criticized the term "chance witnesses," highlighting that witnesses' presence at a crime scene should not be viewed suspiciously based on such labels. The judgment further addressed specific reasons given by the Sessions Judge to doubt the witnesses' credibility, such as the absence of shouting by a vendor and the witnesses' reactions during the incident. The delay in the special report reaching the Magistrate was also scrutinized, with the judgment explaining the plausible reasons for the time lapse and dismissing the inference of delayed reporting. The arrest of one accused was deemed valid, despite suspicions raised by the lower courts. The judgment highlighted the unreasonableness of the Sessions Judge's views and supported the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal. Regarding the aspect of common intention, the judgment analyzed the evidence of a prior altercation between one accused and the deceased. While the accused collectively participated in the incident, the judgment questioned the establishment of a shared intention to cause death. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the accused facilitated the stabbing, their common intention to cause death was not conclusively proven. As a result, the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside, and the accused were instead convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, with modified sentences. The conviction and sentence of one accused were confirmed based on the severity of his actions.
|
