Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S Sistani and Vinod Goel, JJ upheld a conviction on charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC in an appeal. The Court emphasized on the importance of evidence to attribute common intention in pursuance of a crime.
The appellant had, along with two others held down the deceased, while his brother had stabbed the deceased at least 10 times, out of which four injuries were individually and collectively enough in the ordinary course to cause death. The question before the Court was not in relation to the presence of the appellant at the scene, which was undisputed by the testimonies of the witnesses. The issue was whether the appellant shared the common intention to cause death.
The Court analyzed the testimonies and evidence before it and came to the conclusion that the appellant along with the other co-accused had held down the deceased only after the prime accused had come to the scene with a knife and had held him down through the repeated stabbing inflicted upon the deceased. The appellant must have surely known that stabbing was likely to cause death of the deceased. Moreover, PW-1 testified that all the accused had dragged the injured victim to the side of the road before fleeing. The forensic report supported the testimony as there were indeed marks consisted with dragging on a rough surface on the body of the deceased. The Court also gave an order regarding compensation under Sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC. The appeal was accordingly, dismissed. [Kalu @ Rajinder v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10269, decided on 08.09.2017]
