Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of t rnjab

State of Telangana, through SDOP Godavarikhani, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/A-3 ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1383 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 37AQ) of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 04-01-2018 in Spl.SC No.61 of 2015 on the file of the C,rurt of the Specral Sessions Judge for Trial of,Offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Between: Md. Aveze S/o Mukthar Ahmed, Aged 20 years, R/o.H No 20-4-'140, Gandhi Nagar, Godavarikhani. ...APELLANT/ACCUSEDNo. 4 AND The State of Telangana' reP Hyderabad. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the APPellant No' 1 in CRLA No. 834 of 2018 Counsel fqr the APPellant No' 2 in CRLA No. 834 of 2018 Counsel for the APPellant in CRLA No. 248 of 2018 Counsel for the APPellant in CRLA No. 1383 of 2018 : Sri K. S. Suneel : Sri Challa Srinivas ReddY : Sri C. Damodar ReddY representing Sri C. Ruthwik ReddY : Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan Counsel for the ResPondent The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT: : Additional Public Prosecutor 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI WSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.834 248 and, 1383 of 2O18 qq!4!4qNgrDqI4ENI: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sur,,nder) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.01.2018 in Sp1.S.C.No.61 of 2015, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs / STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, convicting the appellants/ accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sectiorl 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ, these Criminal Appeals are f-rled.

2. Crl.A.No.834 of 2018 is frled by the accused Nos.1 and 2, Cr1.A,No.248 of 2018 is hled by the accused No.3 and Crl.A.No. 1383 of 2018 is hled by the accused No.4. Sincr: the appeals are hled questioning the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2O15, the appeals are disposed of by wzL1. of this common j udgment.

3. Heard Mr., C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.248 of 2018, Mr. Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Iearned counsel for the appellant/ 4 accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.1383 of 2018 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

4. It is informed that the accused No. 1 died during the pendency of Crl.A.No.S34 of 2018. Accordingly, the case against the accused No. 1 stands abated.

5. On 21.09.2O22, this Court had grarted bail to the accused No.2 on the ground that he was aged less than 18 years on the date of the incident. This Court had directed the learned Special Sessions'Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, to enquire and submit a report regarding the age of the accused No.2 on the date of the incident. A report was sent by learned Sessions Judge on 2a.O5.2O22, and according to the report, the accused No.2 was aged less than 18 years on the date of the incident. On the baSis of juvenility of the accused No.2, the bail was granted.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor neither disputed the death of the accused No.1 nor the accused No.2 being less than 18 years on the date of incident. 5

7. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW. 1, u'ho is the father of the deceased Boyina Prasharth, lodged a complaint ot 12.11.2014 at O4:00 a.m. In the telugu written complaint, PW. 1 stated that on ll.l1.21l4, at around 07:3O p.m., the deceased, along with his friend, namellr Praveen, went for dressing his fractured leg. PW.5 then inforrn ed PW. 1 about the deceased being murde."i. Th"rr, PW. 1 werlt to the clinic and asked PW.3-RMP Doctor and PW.4-Compounder, what had happened. Both of them .stated that two unidentifred persons entered the clinic and stabbed the deceased indiscrirninately with knives on his back, stomach, and chest, and fled away. The deceased died instantaneously. In the complaint, PW. 1 stated that he suspected the accused No. 1 ano his friends as the assailants who attacked his son in the clinic with knives. B. The said complaint was received -by PW.12 on 12.11,.2014 at 04:0O a.m., and immediately, he registered the complaint under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. PW. 12 visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and also inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the dead body was referred to the Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, for autopsy. The material objects available at 6 the scene were seized. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested bv PW. 12 on l8.ll.2Ol4. Their confessions were recorded, and the motor cycle, which was used in the commission of the offence, was seized.

9. The Test Identilication Parade was conducted by the learned Magistrate-PW.9. In the Test Identification Parade, PWs.3, 4, and 5 participated and identified the accused Nos.1 to 4.

10. The investigation was concluded, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC

11. The learned Sessions Judge, having framed charge for the said offence against the accused Nos. 1 to 4, and placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.3, 4, and 5, convicted the accused Nos.l to 4.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Even according to the eye witnesses' account, the accused Nos.3 and 4 were standing outside the clinic, whereas the incident happened 7 inside the clinic. In the said circumstances, the question of inferring that the accused Nos.3 and 4, who were outside the clinic, shared a common intention with the accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be believed. Even assuming that the accused Nos.3 arrd 4 were present at the scene, their mere presence will not, in any manner, entail their conviction with the ai<1 of Section 34 of IPC.

13. karned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'Lrle Supreme Court in Surendra Singh and another a. State ot Uttarakhandr, wherein it was held as foliows: "18. By now it is a settled principle of law that for convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IP(l the prosecution must establish prior meeLings of minds. It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crirne wilh the accused who has actually committed the crime. It must be established that the criminal act has been done il furtherance of the common intention of all the accusecl. Reliance in support of the aforesaid propositi,rn could be placed on the fol-lowing judgments of this Court in the cases of: (1) (ii) (iii) Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and a:rother State of Guj arat2; Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of t\rnjab3; Gadadhar Chandra v. State of Wcst Bengal+;