- Home
- /
- Meditate
- /
- To Incur Joint Liability for an Offence There Should Not be a Long Interval Between the Act or Pre-meditation and the Plan may be Formed Suddenly: Allahabad HC
The bench stated that it is by now well settled that principles of joint liability in committing an offence is contemplated under section 34 IPC. The factum of joint liability in committing the offence is dependent upon the existence of common intention pursuant to which three accused acted in furtherance of their common intention.
High Court opined that in order to incur joint liability for an offence there need not be a long interval between the act or pre-meditation and the plan may be formed suddenly. Section 34 IPC would be attracted in the facts of the case and each of the accused would be held liable for an offence under section 302 IPC.
The bench observed that “there existed no premeditation; it was a sudden fight; the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, therefore, the case in hand clearly falls under the fourth exception to section 300 IPC. The accused-appellants are accordingly sentenced to ten years imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC, by substituting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them under Section 302 IPC.”
High Court after considering the fact that Accused Firoz has already undergone incarceration of nearly 25 years, released him from jail.
In view of the above, the bench partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Salim @ Pappu v. State of U.P.
Bench: Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shanker Prasad
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 6666 of 2008
Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now
The Allahabad HC on Tuesday stated that, in order to incur joint liability for an offence, there need not be a long interval between the act or pre-meditation and the plan may be formed suddenly.
The bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shanker Prasad was dealing with appeals filed by brothers namely Saleem and Firoz, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge.
In this case, all three accused are real brothers. Mazid and Fasiuddin accordingly asked the three accused to sprinkle water before sweeping the area so that dust does not come to their workshop and on this Saleem, Firoz and Dilshad started abusing them.
Mazid and Fasiudding asked them not to do so on which the accused persons attacked them with a knife. Saleem grabbed Fasiuddin and Dilshad stabbed him and Firoz stabbed Mazid. Fasiuddin was declared dead.
The accused Saleem and Firoz has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and has also been convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 IPC.
The accused Firoz has also been convicted and sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25/4 Arms Act.
The issue for consideration before the bench was:
Whether there existed common intention on part of the accused-appellants in committing the offence?
Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join
The bench stated that it is by now well settled that principles of joint liability in committing an offence is contemplated under section 34 IPC. The factum of joint liability in committing the offence is dependent upon the existence of common intention pursuant to which three accused acted in furtherance of their common intention.
High Court opined that in order to incur joint liability for an offence there need not be a long interval between the act or pre-meditation and the plan may be formed suddenly. Section 34 IPC would be attracted in the facts of the case and each of the accused would be held liable for an offence under section 302 IPC.
The bench observed that “there existed no premeditation; it was a sudden fight; the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, therefore, the case in hand clearly falls under the fourth exception to section 300 IPC. The accused-appellants are accordingly sentenced to ten years imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC, by substituting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them under Section 302 IPC.”
High Court after considering the fact that Accused Firoz has already undergone incarceration of nearly 25 years, released him from jail.
In view of the above, the bench partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Salim @ Pappu v. State of U.P.
Bench: Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shanker Prasad
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 6666 of 2008
Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now
