Zahoor & ORS. v. State of U.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-04-26
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. Zahoor and Subrati: conviction under Section 304(1) IPC read with Section 34 set aside; released forthwith. Babu: conviction maintained under Section 304(1) IPC; sentence reduced from 10 years to 5 years; Babu to be released on completion of the 5-year term.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Zahoor
Subrati
Babu

Respondents

State of Uttar Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• J.P. Sharma
• Naresh Bakshi

Counsels for Respondents

• R.K. Gupta
• Pradeep Misra
• Suraj Singh
• Sandeep Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment arises from Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2008 concerning the murder of Mahipal Singh alias Puttan on 18 May 1979. The Trial Court convicted Zahoor, Subrati, and Babu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court gave a modified verdict, convicting two of the appellants (Zahoor and Subrati) under Section 304(1) IPC read with Section 34, on the ground of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appeal came up before the Supreme Court on special leave. The Court held that as to Zahoor and Subrati, no overt act was attributed to them; they did not cause injuries, and their sole alleged act was exhorting their co-accused to shoot. The court ruled that vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be fastened on them. The appellant Babu, who was a minor at the time and is now about 60, had his sentence considered in the interest of justice. The Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing his sentence from 10 years to 5 years under 304(1) IPC, while upholding the conviction against Babu. The Court directed release of Zahoor and Subrati forthwith if not required elsewhere, and release of Babu on completion of his 5-year term. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 304(1) IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of common intention under Section 34 IPC
Overt act requirement for liability under Section 34 IPC
Ends of justice principle (relevance to sentence reduction)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submitted that Zahoor and Subrati cannot be convicted under Section 304(1) read with Section 34 as there was no overt act or premeditation, and their sole act of exhorting others to shoot does not establish common intention; with no injury attributed to them, their conviction should be set aside and mercy shown. Babu, who was a minor at the time and now aged about 60, urged leniency, seeking reduction of his sentence and relief under the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that Zahoor and Subrati were liable under Section 304(1) read with Section 34 due to common intention, despite the absence of direct injuries, since urging others to shoot constitutes participation; Babu’s conviction should be maintained with an appropriate sentence, and the overall liability should be affirmed to ensure accountability for the murder.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## [2011] !5 S.C.R. 881 ## ZAHOOR & ORS. _v._ STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2008) APRIL 26, 2011 ## [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] - B '-· _Penal Code, 1860_ _ - s. _304 (I) read with_ s. · _34_ - _De'ath_ - - - _due to gunshots Three accused Conviction_ u/s. _302 and_ C _sentence of life imprisonment by the trial court- However, the High Court modified the conviction to one uls. 304 (/)_ · _read with_ s. _34 on the ground that the matter related to a sudden_ - _qliarrel without pre-meditation On appeal held:_ As regards two of the accused no overt act_ has _been attributed to them_ - D _They did not cause any injury to the deceased or to anybody else and the only allegation against _them_ is _that they had_ - _exhorted their co-accused to shoot at the deceased Thus, their conviction_ is _set aside_ - _Conviction of the third accused uls 304(Part-1)_ does _not calf for interference_ - _However, he_ E was _of tender age on the date of the incident and at present he_ is _60 years of age_ - _In the interest of justice, his sentence_ - is, _reduced from 10 to 5 years Sentence/Sentencing._ D E CRIMINAL APP_ ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1331 Of 2008. . F From the Judgment & Order dated 08.10.2007 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2630 of 1982. J.P. Sharma, Naresh Bakshi for the Appellants. G R.K. Gupta, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Sandeep Singh for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered 881 H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A ## ORDER In this appeal for the reasons mentioned hereunder, no detailed facts are necessary. Suffice it to say that the appellants before us Zahoor, Subrati and Babu were brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having committed the murder of Mahipal Singh@ Puttan on the 18th May, 1979. The Trial court convicted them under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court has by C the impugned judgment held that the appellants were liable to conviction under Section 304 (I) of the IPC read with Section 34 as the matter related to a sudden quarrel without premeditation and that a fine of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice .. The matter is before us after the grant of special D leave at the instance of the accused. · B E F We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the High Court in so far as the appellant-Babu is concerned. However, in the light of the fact that the other two appellants i.e. Zahoor and Subrati have been brought in with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, their conviction and sentence cannot be maintained as the vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be fastened as Section 34 deals with common intention which presupposes some piror planning or pre-concept of minds even during the incident. Moreover. we find that Zahoor and Subrati had not caused any injury to the deceased or to anybody else and the only allegation against them that they had exhorted their co-accused to shoot at the deceased Puttan. In other words no overt act has been attributed to them. G We also see from the record that the appellant-Babu was of tender age on the date of the incident. The incident happened in the year 1979 which would now make him about 60 years of age as of now. We quite appreciate that one man H ZAHOOR & ORS. _v._ STATE OF U.P. 883 has been shot dead but in the overall picture we feel that the A ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from 10 to 5 years under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The appeal against Zahoor and Subrati is allowed in toto but insofar as the appellant-Babu is concerned, the appeal is dismissed with the reduction in the sentence. B B _I_ In the meantime, we direct that the appellants-Zahoor and Subrati, who are in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. The appellant-Babu be released on the completion of his sentence of 5 years. c > The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.