Zahoor & Ors vs State Of U.P
- SCC(2011) 15 SCC 218
- Neutral2011 INSC 333
- AIRAIR 2011 SC 2501
- SCR[2011] 5 SCR 881
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Section 34 of the IPC, which provides for vicarious liability based on common intention, requires proof of prior planning or a pre-conceived understanding of minds, and cannot be invoked merely on the basis of exhortation to commit an offence without any overt act on the part of the accused sought to be made liable under that section. Where an accused person has caused no injury to the deceased or any other person, and the only allegation is that they exhorted a co-accused to commit the offence, Section 34 cannot be applied to fasten vicarious liability without proof of common intention involving prior planning or pre-concert.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R
In this appeal for the reasons mentioned hereunder, no detailed facts are necessary.
Suffice it to say that the appellants before us Zahoor, Subrati and Babu were brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having committed the murder of Mahipal Singh @ Puttan on the 18th May, 1979. The Trial court convicted them under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court has by the impugned judgment held that the appellants were liable to conviction under Section 304 (I) of the IPC read with Section 34 as the matter related to a sudden quarrel without premeditation and that a fine of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice.. The matter is before us after the grant of special leave at the instance of the accused.
-2-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the High Court in so far as the appellant-Babu is concerned. However, in the light of the fact that the other two appellants i.e. Zahoor and Subrati have been brought in with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, their conviction and sentence cannot be maintained as the vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be fastened as Section 34 deals with common intention which pre- supposes some piror planning or pre-concept of minds even during the incident. Moreover, we find that Zahoor and Subrati had not caused any injury to the deceased or to anybody else and the only allegation against them that they had exhorted their co-accused to shoot at the deceased Puttan. In other words no overt act has been attributed to them.
We also see from the record that the appellant-Babu was of tender age on the date of the incident. The incident happened in the year 1979 which would now make him about 60 years of age as of now. We quite appreciate that one man has been shot dead but in the overall picture we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from 10 to 5 years under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The appeal against Zahoor and Subrati is allowed in toto but insofar as the appellant-Babu is concerned, the appeal is dismissed with the reduction in the sentence.
-3-
In the meantime, we direct that the appellants-
Zahoor and Subrati, who are in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. The appellant-Babu be released on the completion of his sentence of 5 years.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
New Delhi, April 26, 2011.
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