LI Network
Published on: February 7, 2024 at 12:48 IST
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the life imprisonment of three accused while modifying the sentence of another accused (A3) to culpable homicide, sentencing him to ten years.
Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha of the Division Bench reviewed the conviction of A3 for murder based on Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A3, having familial ties with the other accused, was present at the crime scene. However, the Court noted the absence of oral or documentary evidence establishing A3’s intent to commit murder, cautioning against a mechanical inference under Section 34 solely based on his presence and familial relations.
The case involved animosity between two groups in the same village, arising from a political election where the deceased’s sister won, and the wife of A-4 lost. The ensuing conflict led to the murder of the deceased.
The Court scrutinized the evidence against A3, emphasizing the lack of details on how he used a stone to strike the deceased’s head. While other accused used an axe in the assault, A3 did not wield it. The Court highlighted that A3’s actions, limited to holding a stone and threatening intervention, indicated a lack of shared intent to commit murder.
Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted A3 of the murder charge, convicting him instead under Section 304 Part II, with a ten-year imprisonment term. The convictions of the other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were upheld, dismissing their Criminal Appeal.
The ruling, in the case titled “VELTHEPU SRINIVAS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA),” emphasizes the necessity of establishing a common intention beyond mere proximity for convictions in such cases.