Both the accused went with a common intention, therefore motive was established : Supreme Court

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein original accused No.2 and has acquitted him for the offences IPC the original informant son of the deceased has District Gazipur stating that due to the enmity going on father Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala his father has been killed. As per the allegation on 21.04.1982 there was marriage of daughter of he along with his Tau ­ Vikrama Singh and his cousin was lying from before. He and his cousin Indradeo Singh stick. In between 2:30­3:00 am in the night accused the informant and the witnesses raised alarm then threatened them on account of which they kept quiet Thereafter both the accused ran away towards North IO) recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses including eye witnesses and also collected the relevant evidences. On conclusion of the investigation the IO filed the chargesheet against both the accused for the offences the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions the case was committed to the sessions court punishable under Sections 302 and 302 34 of the IPC examined PW­1 Omkar Singh informant and PW­2 and PW­3 Dr. P.C. Srivastava who conducted the post mortem of the deceased and PW­5 SI Kamta Singh. On statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. That thereafter on appreciation of the entire IPC and A­2 Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala for the of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 34 of the IPC respectively the accused preferred an appeal before the Court has though believed the eye witnesses PW­1 PW­2 on the ground that the three prosecution witnesses had assigned to him and therefore there might be an exaggeration of his role and false implication by the Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave error while acquitting respondent No.1 6.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on named in the FIR. It is submitted that all the three eye was sleeping and that respondent No.1 with a common intention to murder the deceased accompanied his son exhorted his son to kill him and thereafter accused No.1 killed the deceased with fire arm. It is submitted that therefore the learned Trial Court rightly convicted by the High Court the motive has been established and proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that 6.3 It is submitted that the said finding observation is on has been established and proved by the prosecution by examining PW­1 PW­2 and PW­4 who are the eye witnesses and that their evidence has been believed by the High 7. Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the the State has supported the appellant and has submitted No.1 accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore the same is not required to be the role of exhortation only and no further overt act has been assigned to him and even as per the prosecution No.1 herein original accused No.2 was exhortation. The for the offences punishable under Section 302 34 of the named in the FIR. There are three eye witnesses to the incident namely PW­1 PW­2 and PW­4 and all the prosecution witnesses have named respondent No.1 accused No.2 and all of them have stated that both the No.1 killed the deceased by fire arm. All the three prosecution witnesses are consistent and fully supported witnesses are reliable and trustworthy and there is no thereafter doubted the presence of accused No.2 respondent No.1 herein. Once the High Court has even confirmed the conviction of accused No.1 relying upon all the three eye witnesses the High Court ought to have the High Court has acquitted respondent No.1 accused dispute there was enmity between the parties. Therefore the deceased accompanied his son and on finding the proved and specific role of exhortation was assigned to him has upheld confirmed the conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 34 of the IPC Therefore once the conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 34 of the IPC was upheld confirmed the High Court ought to have also charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 34 of the IPC. Both the accused with a common proved the High Court has committed a grave error in acquitting respondent No.1 accused No.2. The finding on record. The impugned judgment and order is passed by the High Court acquitting respondent No.1 by the learned Trial Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 34 of IPC and sentencing

Summary: The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal stated that when both the accused went to commit the crime with a common intention, the motive is established and therefore, both shall be acquitted of the crime. This was held by the Supreme Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna in the matters between Omkar Singh v Jaiprakash Narain Singh &amp; Anr. in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2022 decided on 9th February,2022. The appeal arose from a grievance caused due to the order of High Court   of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1983.An FIR was lodged by the appellant as his father was killed by the accused 1 &amp; 2. The deceased was  lying under a sheet after a wedding, when the Jai Prakash Singh went near him and asked his son to shoot the deceased by a country pistol. The accused were charged under  (A1) Section 302  and (A2) 302/34 of IPC by the Trial court. They pleaded not guilty and thus, appealed the matter in front of High Court. The High Court stated that there has been a n exaggeration of the role of A2, therefore he is not held guilty for murder. Aggrieved by this, the original informant i.e., the son of the deceased, preferred the present appeal. The counsel from appellant stated that the High Court has committed an error while acquitting the respondent (A2). It was submitted that the respondent was the one who went near the deceased with a common intention and exhorted his son to kill the deceased with a fire arm. However, the respondent pleaded that the High Court has given strong reasons to acquit the respondent and it is not required to be interfered by Supreme Court as per Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme court, after hearing the pleadings from both the sides, stated that it is a noteworthy fact that the respondent has been a part of  the case from the very beginning. Since, the case of the prosecution has been backed by eye-witnesses and this as also been observed by the High Court, the Court ought not to have doubted the presence of the respondent. There has been en omission of appreciation of all the facts by the High Court. The respondent shared a common intention to kill the deceased along with the accused 2.Therefore, is held liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of the High Court was quashed and the Trial Court judgement was restored.