2000 JTR(SC) 1042
2000 2 AICLR 718 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 1582 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 1681 ; 2000 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 203 ; 2000 41 AllCriC 120 ; 2000 2 BBCJ(SC) 236 ; 2000 3 CCR(SC) 20 ; 2000 3 Crimes(SC) 69 ; 2000 CrLJ 2466 ; 2000 2 EastCrC(SC) 777 ; 2000 2 JCC 474 ; 2000 6 JT 226 ; 2000 2 MWN(Cri) 231 ; 2000 3 PLJR(SC) 144 ; 2000 3 RCR(Cri) 217 ; 2000 4 Scale 697 ; 2000 9 SCC 153 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1186 ; 2000 KHC 1422 ; 2000 4 Supreme 725
2000(4) Supreme 725
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Bahadur Naik -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 1998
Decided on 11-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vijay K. Mehta, Advocate (A.C.)
For the Respondent : B.B. Singh, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Advocates.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34, S.304
(A) The offences punishable under Indian Penal Code Sections 302 and 34 were applied in this case, where the accused was convicted for causing grievous hurt resulting in death in a group assault, and the provisions of Section 304 Indian Penal Code were considered but not applied due to absence of premeditation. Section 302 read with Section 34 addresses acts done in furtherance of common intention, while Section 304 Part I and Part II deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and prescribes a lesser punishment, which was not attracted on facts.
(B) Key legal principles include that conviction can be based on eye-witness testimony even if the Investigating Officer is not examined as a witness, pre-meditation can develop on the spot depending on facts and circumstances, and sufficient light at the scene satisfying identification negates doubt. Conversion from murder to culpable homicide requires evidence of absence of premeditation or sudden provocation.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was attacked at night by multiple persons, with the appellant delivering five or six dagger blows while others held the victim. The incident occurred around 9 PM, and two eyewitnesses independently identified the appellant and testified to the stabbing. The co-accused were absconding, and the victim died on the spot from the injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court found no material contradiction in the prosecution evidence, held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused no prejudice, and determined that the presence of sufficient light enabled clear identification. The court rejected the argument for conversion to Section 304 IPC, characterizing the assault as executed with premeditation on the spot.
Issues:
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 is sustainable on the evidence, whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer impacts the case, and whether the offence should be treated as murder or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The collective testimony of independent eye-witnesses, the absence of contradictory evidence, and the presence of sufficient light to identify the accused establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of the injuries and the group attack support a finding of premeditation, thereby not attracting Section 304 IPC, and the conviction under Section 302/34 is upheld.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed with a life sentence.
(A) The offences punishable under Indian Penal Code Sections 302 and 34 were applied in this case, where the accused was convicted for causing grievous hurt resulting in death in a group assault, and the provisions of Section 304 Indian Penal Code were considered but not applied due to absence of premeditation. Section 302 read with Section 34 addresses acts done in furtherance of common intention, while Section 304 Part I and Part II deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and prescribes a lesser punishment, which was not attracted on facts.
(B) Key legal principles include that conviction can be based on eye-witness testimony even if the Investigating Officer is not examined as a witness, pre-meditation can develop on the spot depending on facts and circumstances, and sufficient light at the scene satisfying identification negates doubt. Conversion from murder to culpable homicide requires evidence of absence of premeditation or sudden provocation.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was attacked at night by multiple persons, with the appellant delivering five or six dagger blows while others held the victim. The incident occurred around 9 PM, and two eyewitnesses independently identified the appellant and testified to the stabbing. The co-accused were absconding, and the victim died on the spot from the injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court found no material contradiction in the prosecution evidence, held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused no prejudice, and determined that the presence of sufficient light enabled clear identification. The court rejected the argument for conversion to Section 304 IPC, characterizing the assault as executed with premeditation on the spot.
Issues:
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 is sustainable on the evidence, whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer impacts the case, and whether the offence should be treated as murder or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The collective testimony of independent eye-witnesses, the absence of contradictory evidence, and the presence of sufficient light to identify the accused establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of the injuries and the group attack support a finding of premeditation, thereby not attracting Section 304 IPC, and the conviction under Section 302/34 is upheld.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed with a life sentence.
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal J.-The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by Court of Sessions and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The conviction is based mainly on the testimony of two eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. The incident took place at about 9.00 P.M. on 21st March, 1992. The appellant is said to have given 5/6 dagger blows to deceased Triveni when Triveni was caught hold by Jaleshwar and Jogender. These two persons are absconding and, therefore, they could not be prosecuted. On learning that his son was being assaulted, PW-2, Dipu Gope the informant went to place of occurrence and on way deceased Triveni joined him. When they reached the place of occurrence, Triveni asked about the son of PW-2 whereupon Triveni was taken to nearby pipul tree and the aforesaid two persons caught hold of Triveni and the applicant gave dagger blows as earlier stated. Triveni succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. The other eye witness PW-3 is theperson with whom son of PW-2 was taking liquor when he was assaulted on outraging modesty of the wife of Jaleshwar. PW-3 has also stated to have witnessed the incident of stabbing by the appellant.
2. The appellant has not been able to shake the credibility of the eye-witnesses. No material contradiction in the case of the prosecution has been shown to us. Under these facts and circumstances, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is of no consequence. It has not been shown what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination.
3. From the evidence on record it stands proved that there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence to identify the appellant. We are also unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction deserves to be converted to be one under Section 304 I.P.C. either Part-I or Part-II thereof because there was no pre-meditation. The pre-meditation can develop on the spot as well. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the deceased was given 5/6 dagger blows. In view of the evidence on record the contention for converting the sentence as aforesaid cannot be accepted.
4. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, 2000(4) Supreme 725 : 2000 (6) JT 226 : 2000 (2) All. Crl. L.R. 718 : AIR 2000 SC 1582 : 2000 (3) Cur. Crl. R. 20 : 2000 Crl. L.J. 2466 : 2000 (3) Crimes 69 : 2000 (2) JCC 474
00023