Both the accused went with a common intention, therefore motive was established : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal stated that when both the accused went to commit the crime with a common intention, the motive is established and therefore, both shall be acquitted of the crime. This was held by the Supreme Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna in the matters between Omkar Singh v Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr. in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2022 decided on 9th February,2022.

The appeal arose from a grievance caused due to the order of High Court   of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1983.An FIR was lodged by the appellant as his father was killed by the accused 1 & 2. The deceased was  lying under a sheet after a wedding, when the Jai Prakash Singh went near him and asked his son to shoot the deceased by a country pistol. The accused were charged under  (A1) Section 302  and (A2) 302/34 of IPC by the Trial court. They pleaded not guilty and thus, appealed the matter in front of High Court. The High Court stated that there has been a n exaggeration of the role of A2, therefore he is not held guilty for murder. Aggrieved by this, the original informant i.e., the son of the deceased, preferred the present appeal.

The counsel from appellant stated that the High Court has committed an error while acquitting the respondent (A2). It was submitted that the respondent was the one who went near the deceased with a common intention and exhorted his son to kill the deceased with a fire arm. However, the respondent pleaded that the High Court has given strong reasons to acquit the respondent and it is not required to be interfered by Supreme Court as per Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme court, after hearing the pleadings from both the sides, stated that it is a noteworthy fact that the respondent has been a part of  the case from the very beginning. Since, the case of the prosecution has been backed by eye-witnesses and this as also been observed by the High Court, the Court ought not to have doubted the presence of the respondent. There has been en omission of appreciation of all the facts by the High Court. The respondent shared a common intention to kill the deceased along with the accused 2.Therefore, is held liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The order of the High Court was quashed and the Trial Court judgement was restored.

Click here to view the judgement.

Reviewed by Namisha Choudhary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *