Mohd. Musa Mia Alias Mohd. Musa Vs. State of West Bengal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.299 of 1990
Petitioner: Mohd. Musa Mia Alias Mohd. Musa
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.299 of 1990
Judges: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, KULDIP SINGH & R.M. SAHAI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 13, 1992
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Sections 34 and 302 – Appellant caught hold of the deceased while P, the other accused gave a knife blow and thereafter the appellant also gave a knife blow – Whether the appellant shared intention with P? – Held yes.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We have gone through the judgment and the connected records. The appellant who stands convicted along with Pradip Sen under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is stated to have caught hold of the deceased while Pradip Sen gave a knife blow and thereafter the appellant also gave a knife blow on the person of the deceased. Leave was granted only on the nature of offence and question of sentence.
2. The only argument advanced before us by the learned counsel is that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained with the aid of Section 34 IPC since the facts and circumstances of the case do not spell out that this appellant had shared the intention of Pradip Sen in causing the death of the deceased. We are unable to countenance the argument advanced by the learned counsel. In fact the appellant went to the scene spot with a knife and caught hold of the deceased in order to facilitate Pradip Sen to stab the deceased and thereafter the appellant also stabbed the deceased with a knife which he had carried with him. Under these circumstances, we hold that this appellant had shared the intention of Pradip Sen in murdering the deceased. In the result, we are in full agreement with the judgment of the High Court and the conviction recorded by the Courts with the aid of Section 34 for the offence of murder does not call for interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1. We have gone through the judgment and the connected records. The appellant who stands convicted along with Pradip Sen under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is stated to have caught hold of the deceased while Pradip Sen gave a knife blow and thereafter the appellant also gave a knife blow on the person of the deceased. Leave was granted only on the nature of offence and question of sentence.
2. The only argument advanced before us by the learned counsel is that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained with the aid of Section 34 IPC since the facts and circumstances of the case do not spell out that this appellant had shared the intention of Pradip Sen in causing the death of the deceased. We are unable to countenance the argument advanced by the learned counsel. In fact the appellant went to the scene spot with a knife and caught hold of the deceased in order to facilitate Pradip Sen to stab the deceased and thereafter the appellant also stabbed the deceased with a knife which he had carried with him. Under these circumstances, we hold that this appellant had shared the intention of Pradip Sen in murdering the deceased. In the result, we are in full agreement with the judgment of the High Court and the conviction recorded by the Courts with the aid of Section 34 for the offence of murder does not call for interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
