PATAI @ KRISHNA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

PATAI @ KRISHNA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

The telephonic message was cryptic and did not constitute the earliest FIR; the actual FIR was that lodged by P.W.1 at 5:15 p.m.; eyewitnesses who travelled with the deceased were natural and their accounts corroborated that the appellants accosted the deceased with pistols and dragged him to the spot where others fired; by accosting and dragging the deceased while armed, the appellants actively participated in the offence in furtherance of a common intention to kill, hence conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified and upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Patai @ Krishna Kumar; Appellant: Brij Kishore; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld.
Legal Topics
Section 302 IPC Read With Section 34, Common Intention (s.34 Ipc), First Information Report (fir) and Telephonic Messages, Credibility of Eyewitnesses, Recording of FIR
Criminal Law Evidence Police Procedure Section 302 IPC Read With Section 34 Common Intention (s.34 Ipc) First Information Report (fir) and Telephonic Messages Credibility of Eyewitnesses Recording of FIR

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patai @ Krishna Kumar

Appellant

Brij Kishore

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants who did not fire the fatal shots could be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by reason of common intention
  2. 2 Whether the telephonic/cryptic message sent by the Assistant Station Master/ cabin man amounted to a First Information Report
  3. 3 Whether the eyewitnesses were natural and credible and their testimonies admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The telephonic message was cryptic and did not constitute the earliest FIR; the actual FIR was that lodged by P.W.1 at 5:15 p.m.; eyewitnesses who travelled with the deceased were natural and their accounts corroborated that the appellants accosted the deceased with pistols and dragged him to the spot where others fired; by accosting and dragging the deceased while armed, the appellants actively participated in the offence in furtherance of a common intention to kill, hence conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified and upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed