Skip to content


Sivan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 34 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC1529; 1978CriLJ1609; (1978)3SCC141
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302
AppellantSivan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
criminal - common intention - sections 34 and 302 of indian penal code, 1860 - appellant convicted under section 34 read with section 302 - appellant contended evidence not sufficient to prove common intention - circumstantial evidence proved common intention beyond doubt - common intention to cause death of deceased along with accused established to the satisfaction of court - held, appellant rightly convicted. - - the accused knew well that a. 1 by giving blows to the deceased on some vital parts of the body like chest. in these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant clearly shared a common intention to cause the death of the deceased along with accused nos......sword injuries on him. in fact, the deceased had as many as 23 injuries which were inflicted on vital parts of the body.2. the only point that was argued before us by mr. sarathi, the learned counsel for the appellant, was that the evidence does not show that the appellant had a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. in the circumstances of this case, however, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. the accused knew well that a. 1 and others were armed and that a. 1 had caused sword injuries on vital parts of the body of the deceased in the verandah of courtyard and he himself aided accused a.1 by giving blows to the deceased on some vital parts of the body like chest. not content with this the appellant also participated in chasing.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court. The appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. along with accused Nos. 1 to 3 whose appeal by special leave had been dismissed by this Court at the time when the special leave was granted to the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Court below. It appears from the perusal of the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Judge that the case against the appellant is in no way distinguishable from that of the accused 1 to 3. The appellant participated in the assault on the deceased In the verandah of the courtyard and in fact, inflicted lathi injuries on the deceased while A. 1 had inflicted sword injuries on him. In fact, the deceased had as many as 23 injuries which were inflicted on vital parts of the body.

2. The only point that was argued before us by Mr. Sarathi, the learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the evidence does not show that the appellant had a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. In the circumstances of this case, however, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The accused knew well that A. 1 and others were armed and that A. 1 had caused sword injuries on vital parts of the body of the deceased in the verandah of courtyard and he himself aided accused A.1 by giving blows to the deceased on some vital parts of the body like chest. Not content with this the appellant also participated in chasing the deceased where further injuries were given to the deceased after a call by A. 2 to kill the deceased. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant clearly shared a common intention to cause the death of the deceased along with accused Nos. 1 to 3. In these circumstances we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //