In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed the convictions of one accused Maheshwari Yadav and a co-accused in a Criminal Appeal from 2011, stemming from a murder case in Bihar. The appellants had been found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 325 read with Section 34. The primary accused, Paro Yadav, was facing charges under Section 302 of the IPC.

The incident in question occurred on March 10, 1997, when the accused attacked the deceased using a musket, resulting in the death of the victim. The trial court had previously found Paro Yadav guilty of murder, and the appellants were convicted for their involvement in the criminal act.

The prosecution argued that a motive for the crime could be established, citing a prior incident where accused no. 3 had stolen a horse, leading to a conflict with the deceased. Eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) were called upon to provide testimony regarding the circumstances leading up to the assault.

In the written judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, the court underscored the significance of Section 34 of the IPC, stating, "Section 34 essentially establishes vicarious liability. In a specific scenario where the offense is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and common intention is proven, but no direct act of assaulting the deceased is ascribed to the accused implicated under Section 34, vicarious liability under Section 34 will be invoked."

The judges emphasized that the conviction of accused No. 3 for murder could stand even without the invocation of Section 34, rendering its application unnecessary. After evaluating the testimony of eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-5), the court deemed it consistent and of high quality, dismissing challenges to their credibility.

Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the appellants were instructed to surrender before the Trial Court to fulfill the remaining sentence. Furthermore, the State Government was directed to assess the appellants' case for permanent remission in accordance with the law. This ruling sets a significant precedent in the interpretation and application of relevant sections of the IPC in cases of murder with common intention.

Case: Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. vs The State of Bihar

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1515 OF 2011.

Click to read/download Judgment.