DAYA SHANKAR versus STATE OF M.P.

DAYA SHANKAR versus STATE OF M.P.

On the proved facts the evidence did not attribute any overt act to the appellant; mere presence in the company of armed accused was insufficient to attract Section 34 IPC, the appellant was not armed, had no animosity with the deceased, and the alleged act of pulling the legs was not established; therefore the appellant could not be held guilty under Section 34 IPC and his conviction was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Daya Shankar; Respondent: State of M.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court (crl. Appeal No. 639 of 1993)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction of appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside
Legal Topics
Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Common Intention, Conviction Under Section 302 Read With Section 34
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC Common Intention Conviction Under Section 302 Read With Section 34

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daya Shankar

Appellant

State of M.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court (crl. Appeal No. 639 of 1993)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant can be convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on the evidence and facts of the case
  2. 2 Whether mere presence in company of accused who were armed or alleged pulling of legs without further proof suffices to infer common intention under Section 34 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

On the proved facts the evidence did not attribute any overt act to the appellant; mere presence in the company of armed accused was insufficient to attract Section 34 IPC, the appellant was not armed, had no animosity with the deceased, and the alleged act of pulling the legs was not established; therefore the appellant could not be held guilty under Section 34 IPC and his conviction was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction of appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside

Orders

  • Conviction of the appellant set aside
  • Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case