Kamalakashi. Vs. State Of Kerala.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1503 of 1986).
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1503 of 1986).
Petitioner: Kamalakashi.
Respondent: State Of Kerala.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1503 of 1986).
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1503 of 1986).
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 11, 1987
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW:
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 read with Section 34 – Appellant gave a stick blow – Her father who suddenly came from behind gave a blow with a chopper – Appellant did not share the common intention to commit the murder – She could never have been convicted for an offence under S.302 read with S.34.
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 read with Section 34 – Appellant gave a stick blow – Her father who suddenly came from behind gave a blow with a chopper – Appellant did not share the common intention to commit the murder – She could never have been convicted for an offence under S.302 read with S.34.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special Leave Petition granted. Hear both the sides.
2. This is a matter where the appellant could never have been convicted for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. All that she is supposed to have done is to give a stick blow. It was the father of the appellant who suddenly came from behind and gave a blow with a chopper. She could not even have anticipated such an event. On these admitted facts which are culled out from the judgments of the trial court and the High Court it is impossible to take the view that the appellant shared the common intention to commit the murder of the victim. The appellant has already been in jail for more than four years. Under the circumstances, the appeal must be allowed and the appellant must be set at liberty forthwith. We order accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
1. Special Leave Petition granted. Hear both the sides.
2. This is a matter where the appellant could never have been convicted for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. All that she is supposed to have done is to give a stick blow. It was the father of the appellant who suddenly came from behind and gave a blow with a chopper. She could not even have anticipated such an event. On these admitted facts which are culled out from the judgments of the trial court and the High Court it is impossible to take the view that the appellant shared the common intention to commit the murder of the victim. The appellant has already been in jail for more than four years. Under the circumstances, the appeal must be allowed and the appellant must be set at liberty forthwith. We order accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
