JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Rakesh & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
6th July 2021
JUDGES:
M.R. Shah, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
PARTIES:
Appellants- Rakesh & Anr.
Respondents- State of UP & Anr.
SUBJECT
The following judgement deals with Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes murder and explains that when criminal act is done by a group of people with shared objective, each of these people is responsible for the conduct in the same way as if he had done it alone. This appeal was filed against the High Court judgement where the appellant was convicted under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
AN OVERVIEW
- In this case, the defendants were found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for killing one Bhishampal Singh in an incident that occurred on January 2, 2006. One of the arguments made on behalf of the accused in the appeal was that the bullet detected in the ballistic analysis did not match the fire arm/gun seized, implying that the use of the gun as stated is speculative and that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.
- The accused (Anil, Suresh, and Rakesh) were tried by the learned trial Court for killing one Bhishampal Singh on January 28, 2006, in an event punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. Rakesh shot the dead with a home-made handgun, injuring him. Suresh and Anish were accused of assaulting the dead with their respective knives.
- The defendants were also found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, for which the learned trial Court issued a separate sentence. The learned trial Court relied primarily on eye witness depositions, medical evidence, and the deposition of Dr. Santosh Kumar, who did the post-mortem on the deceased's corpse, in condemning the defendants.
- Feeling aggrieved and discontent with the learned trial Court's decision and order of conviction and sentence convicting the accused of the act punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and imposing a life sentence, as well as the charges under the Arms Act, the High Court has dismissed the above-mentioned appeal and confirmed the accused's conviction for the charges under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and the sentence imposed of life imprisonment in the challenged judgment and order. The initial accused that were upset and unhappy with the High Court ruling, decided to file this appeal.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if he did it alone.
Section 25(4) in the Arms Act
Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence, or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under Sub-Section (10) of that Section on its suspension or revocation, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to Five Hundred Rupees, or with both.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- The Court first stated that they have listened attentively to the learned Counsel for each party. The decision and conviction order have been properly handled and punished by the learned Court and the challenged judgement and order handed down by the High Court.
- The reason has been stated and proven in the present case. The defence was said to be unfounded and to prove its involvement in the case fraudulently.
- The tribunal has also reviewed the whole documentary evidence, more specifically Prosecution Witness 1, Prosecution Witness 2 and Prosecution Witness 5 depositions and has taken into account the injuries detected on the dead person's body. The judgement and order issued by the Court judges showed that the Court relied largely on Prosecution Witness 1, Prosecution Witness 2 and Prosecution Witness 5 during the conviction of the accused.
- Amicus Curiae learned Shri Rishi Malhotra strongly argued that the apprentices of the Court as well as the High Court had made a serious mistake in convicting the defendants based on the depositions of PW1 and PW2.
- The eye-witnesses for the event are Prosecution Witness 1 and Prosecution Witness 2. The Court firmly believed that Prosecution Witness 1 & Prosecution Witness 2 had gone through all their deposits, and even a cross-examination of the above mentioned two witnesses. Their existence was verified and demonstrated by the prosecution at the time of the encounter with the deceased. At the moment of the occurrence, it is usual to have Prosecution Witness 1 and even Prosecution Witness 2.
- Prosecution Witness 1 is the deceased's son who was present in the Court. In the same way, Prosecution Witness 2 was also compelled to attend the Court and therefore arrived at the Court and observed the occurrence afterwards. Both witnesses were questioned in their entirety and exhaustively. However, there may be certain minor inconsistencies, as held in the catenary of the decisions of this Court, little contradictions are not at the root of the problem and/or such discrepancies are not substantive contradictions.
- The foregoing cannot be accepted as far as an argument in the name of the accused is made that, in accordance with the ballistic report, the bullet which is found does not match the retrieved firearm or gun, and thus the use, as alleged, of the gun is dubious. It may be claimed at most that the police pistol recuperated from the accused may not have been used for killing and the real weapon used to kill can thus be overlooked and viewed as without recovery. Prosecution Witness 1 & Prosecution Witness 2, as previously noted, are reliable and reliable eyewitnesses and have claimed, in particular, that Rakesh has shot using the firearms and caused harm to the deceased. The damage by the gun was proven and shown by Dr. Santosh Kumar’s (Prosecution Witness 5) proof and deposition. The No.1 injury is due to fire arms. The credible eye evidence of Prosecution Witness 1 and Prosecution Witness 2 - eyewitnesses, who saw the shooting, cannot therefore be rejected. The veracity of the Prosecution Witness 1 & Prosecution Witness 2 deposition that Rakesh shot with a gun has nothing to do with it, especially when this is confirmed by the body's bullet and is confirmed by Prosecution Witness 2 & Prosecution Witness 5's testimonies. Therefore, the Court cannot dismiss the trustworthy and reliable evidence of Prosecution Witness 1 & Prosecution Witness 2 just because the ballistic report reveals that the recovered bullet does not correspond with the found weapon.
- The sharp cutting weapon is enough for injuries Nos. 2 to 8. Injuries Nos. 2 and 8 are present on various areas of the body that demonstrate the other accused Suresh’s and Anil’s purpose and behaviour. Accordingly, they shall be guilty, on the basis of Section 34 IPC, of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution established their attendance and involvement, scrutinising Prosecution Witness 1 & Prosecution Witness 2, which revealed them to be reliable and trustworthy testimonies.
- The prosecution has successfully demonstrated the motivation in this instance. Between the deceased and the accused, Rakesh, was previously a long-term animosity. In addition, even the deceased faced a trial in the case of Rakesh under Section 307 of the IPC. The defence has failed to establish that they are wrongly involved under any circumstances.
Conclusion
- In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no interference was requested by this Court in the light of the aforesaid and for the reasons outlined above. In accordance with Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC, the learned Court and the High Court were justified in convicting the accused for the offence.
- As shown above, Rakesh and the other accused – Suresh and Anil, with the assistance of Section 34 IPC - have both been guilty of the offence punishable by Section 302 IPC and are liable to convict Rakesh and Anil for the offence.
