Madan Pal Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 1995
Petitioner: Madan Pal
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 1995
Judges: U. C. BANERJEE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 30, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 / 34 – Two persons charged and convicted under section 302 / 34 – On appeal, High Court acquitted one – Till the other convicted under section 302 with aid of Sec 34 – Record showing that it was joint effort of both, though no evidence available. Held that conviction of other, as maintained by High Court, was unsustainable. Appeal allowed.
(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
U. C. BANERJEE J
1. The appellant herein stands charged alongwith one Kanta Devi, being the maid servant of the family with the murder of Krishna Devi, the first wife of the appellant herein, and thereby tried under section 302/34 I.P.C. The learned sessions judge convicted both the appellants and Kanta Devi, the maid servant, for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
2. On appeal before the High Court against the order of conviction and sentence, both the appellants herein and Kanta Devi denied their involvement in the murder. The High Court, however, thought it fit to pass an order of acquittal as regards Kanta Devi but ordered the conviction and sentence against the appellant herein, and hence the further appeal before this Court upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. Significantly, however, the High Court has not delved into the issue as to the circumstances under which section 34 I.P.C. was said to be invoked. Both the charges and also questions put on section 313 Cr. P.C. depict that it is not an individual act but the joint effort of both the persons but there is neither any evidence available on record to that effect.
4. On the wake of the aforesaid view and the factum of section 34 I.P.C. being also involved, the High Court convicted the accused under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. In our view, there is a manifest error in maintaining the conviction and sentence. In the absence of any other accused person, question of applicability of section 34 I.P.C. would not arise.
5. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The impugned order thus stands set aside and the accused stands acquitted.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
7. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The appellant herein stands charged alongwith one Kanta Devi, being the maid servant of the family with the murder of Krishna Devi, the first wife of the appellant herein, and thereby tried under section 302/34 I.P.C. The learned sessions judge convicted both the appellants and Kanta Devi, the maid servant, for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
2. On appeal before the High Court against the order of conviction and sentence, both the appellants herein and Kanta Devi denied their involvement in the murder. The High Court, however, thought it fit to pass an order of acquittal as regards Kanta Devi but ordered the conviction and sentence against the appellant herein, and hence the further appeal before this Court upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. Significantly, however, the High Court has not delved into the issue as to the circumstances under which section 34 I.P.C. was said to be invoked. Both the charges and also questions put on section 313 Cr. P.C. depict that it is not an individual act but the joint effort of both the persons but there is neither any evidence available on record to that effect.
4. On the wake of the aforesaid view and the factum of section 34 I.P.C. being also involved, the High Court convicted the accused under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. In our view, there is a manifest error in maintaining the conviction and sentence. In the absence of any other accused person, question of applicability of section 34 I.P.C. would not arise.
5. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The impugned order thus stands set aside and the accused stands acquitted.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
7. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
