SARAVANAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF PONDICHERRY

SARAVANAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF PONDICHERRY

The conviction under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC was upheld because the evidence established that the death resulted from a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention of the accused, and medical evidence showed the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; given the concession that there was no motive amounting to murder, Section 34 was properly applied to sustain convictions under Section 304 II.

Parties
Appellant: Saravanan (A3); Appellant: Natarajan (A4); Respondent: State of Pondicherry
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (criminal Appeal No. 1070 of 1999) / On Appeal by Special Leave From the Madras High Court Judgment Dated 20.10.1998 in Crl. A. No. 688 of 1991 Confirming Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 IPC, Section 304 II IPC, Section 302 IPC, Common Intention, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Joint Liability, Medical Evidence on Cause of Death
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 IPC Section 304 II IPC Section 302 IPC Common Intention Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder Joint Liability +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saravanan (A3)

Appellant

Natarajan (A4)

Appellant

State of Pondicherry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (criminal Appeal No. 1070 of 1999) / On Appeal by Special Leave From the Madras High Court Judgment Dated 20.10.1998 in Crl. A. No. 688 of 1991 Confirming Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 34 IPC was applicable to the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants caused the injury or intended to cause the death of the deceased
  3. 3 Whether conviction under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC was sustainable on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC was upheld because the evidence established that the death resulted from a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention of the accused, and medical evidence showed the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; given the concession that there was no motive amounting to murder, Section 34 was properly applied to sustain convictions under Section 304 II.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC upheld