In a significant legal development, the Supreme court has upheld the conviction of accused individuals in a case involving a heinous crime under the Indian Penal Code. Accused numbers 1 and 2, along with accused number 3 – Paro Yadav, were found guilty of various charges, including Section 302 (murder) and Section 325 (causing grievous hurt) under the IPC.
The incident in question occurred on March 10, 1997, in Village Shrirampur, when the first informant, Jagdish Manjhi (PW-4), visited the village to participate in a Baraat. The accused, armed with weapons, confronted the deceased, Gholti Yadav, leading to a fatal altercation. The trial court convicted accused no.3 under Section 302 of the IPC, while the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Challenging their conviction, separate appeals were filed by the appellants and accused no.3 before the Patna High Court. The appeals were subsequently dismissed by a judgment and order dated October 7, 2005. Accused no.3 filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) no.4802 of 2006 before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on December 11, 2006.
The defense argued that there was no evidence supporting the common intention shared by the appellants and accused no.3. The primary contention focused on the absence of any overt act of assault attributed to appellant no.1, Maheshwari Yadav. Additionally, the defense emphasized the lack of proof for the alleged motive, asserting that there was pre-existing enmity between the deceased and accused no.3.
Section 34 of the IPC, which introduces vicarious liability, was a crucial aspect of the appeal. The court clarified that even without the application of Section 34, accused no.3 could have been convicted for the murder under Section 302. Section 34 was applied to the appellants based on the assertion that they shared a common intention with accused no.3. The court highlighted that Section 34 does not require proof of prior conspiracy or premeditation, and a common intention can be formed just before or during the occurrence.
The defense raised concerns about the credibility of eyewitnesses, especially since they were close relatives of the deceased. However, the court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more crucial than quantity. The court found the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 consistent and credible, noting their detailed accounts of the accused's actions during the incident.
After a thorough examination of the case, the court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The court directed the appellants to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence.
The decision reinforces the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 and underscores the importance of the quality of evidence in criminal proceedings. As the legal process concludes, the State Government is urged to consider the appellants' case for permanent remission in accordance with the law.
Corum: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case: Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. vs The State of Bihar,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1515 OF 2011.
Click to read/download Judgment.
