2003 (1) TMI 761 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence, Alters Conviction to Section 302/34 IPC; Five-Year Sentence for Section 307 Stands.

Chittarmal and Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan

The SC upheld the HC's judgment, confirming the appellants' convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The HC reduced the trial court's death sentence to ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.2. Acquittal of other accused.3. Credibility of eye-witness testimony.4. Specificity of charges under Section 302 IPC.5. Applicability of Section 34 IPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC:The High Court found the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Initially, the trial court sentenced the appellants to death for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court reduced this to life imprisonment. The trial court also sentenced the appellants to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which the High Court upheld. However, the conviction under Section 148 IPC was set aside.2. Acquittal of Other Accused:The High Court acquitted the other accused due to inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of evidence proving their involvement. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with others, assaulted the victims. However, only the appellants were found guilty, while the others were acquitted by the High Court. The acquittal of the remaining accused was not challenged, and thus, the Supreme Court did not delve into this aspect further.3. Credibility of Eye-Witness Testimony:The High Court did not accept Bhenru, PW.5's claim of being an eye-witness, citing inconsistencies in his testimony. The High Court found that the witnesses likely arrived at the scene after the assailants had fled. However, Lal Chand, PW.1's presence at the scene was undisputed. He suffered 24 injuries and testified that the appellants assaulted him and the deceased. The High Court accepted Lal Chand's testimony, excluding parts implicating the other accused, which were deemed improvements.4. Specificity of Charges under Section 302 IPC:The appellants argued that they could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge under that section, citing precedents. The High Court, however, found that the absence of a specific charge under Section 302 IPC did not prejudice the appellants, as they were aware of the charges and had ample opportunity to defend themselves.5. Applicability of Section 34 IPC:The Supreme Court held that the conviction could be sustained under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both Sections 34 and 149 IPC deal with vicarious liability, but Section 34 requires a pre-arranged plan and common intention. The Court found that the appellants acted in concert with a common intention to commit the murders, fulfilling the criteria for Section 34 IPC. Thus, the conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, maintaining the life imprisonment sentence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, altering the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and maintaining the life imprisonment sentence. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the appellants' guilt based on the credible testimony of Lal Chand, PW.1, and the established common intention to commit the murders.