Shambhu Kuer vs State Of Bihar
- SCC(1982) 1 SCC 486
- AIRAIR 1982 SC 1228
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person is found to have physically restrained another during an assault by a third party, but the evidence does not clearly establish that he continued to restrain the victim until the assault was completed, or that he shared the specific intention of the assailant to cause death, the accused cannot be convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the basis of mere participation in the initial restraint. In such circumstances, where the accused's involvement is limited to catching hold of the victim and the victim struggles to free himself, with the assault commencing immediately thereafter by another person, the inference that the accused shared the intention to murder cannot be drawn beyond reasonable doubt, and conviction should be limited to the lesser offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. There were three persons who were prosecuted for the murder of one Surendra Prasad Singh, a young man of about 21 years. The prosecution allegation was that Shambhu Kuer caught hold of the deceased, and Mandip gave three blows to the deceased with a knife. Out of the accused persons, one, Kailash was acquitted by the trial Court, while the other two were convicted : Mandip under Section 302 and Shambhu Kuer under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. During the pendency of the appeal Mandip was released by Government on the ground of serious illness. Mandip's appeal was therefore dismissed as infructuous. The conviction of appellant Shambhu Kuer was upheld by the High Court, with the finding that he continued to hold the deceased till the assault was completed by Mandip. One of the three injuries on the deceased which had pierced the right lung, was according to the medical witness, sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course. Counsel for the appellant contends, and we think right that the eyewitnesses did not clearly state that the appellant continued to hold the deceased till the assault was over. All that appears in the evidence is that Shambhu Kuer caught hold of the deceased and the latter scuffled to get himself released. Immediately thereafter Mandip took out a knife and started assaulting the deceased. From the mere fact that the appellant caught hold of the deceased and scuffled with him, while Mandip took out a knife and commenced the assault, it cannot be inferred beyond reasonable doubt, that he shared the intention of Mandip to murder the deceased. At the most, he was vicariously liable for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 Penal Code. We therefore, partly allow this appeal, alter the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 326 read with Section 24 I.P.C. and sentence him to imprisonment already undergone, which, we are told, is about 6 1/2 years.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free