You are currently viewing SUBED ALI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM



Citation: 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 794

Date of Decision: 30/09/2020


Facts of the Case:

  1. On 05. 08. 2005 at approximately 6:00 PM at the same time as Md. Motin and Abdul Barek have been returning domestic from Borsola marketplace via way of using on their respective via way of-cycles, the accused/appellants, collectively with different accused people restricted each of them on the street at Rajgarh Chariali and injured them with the aid of sharp weapons. As a result of the harm caused, the sufferers i.e. Abdul Barek died instant, and Md. Motin succumbed to his accidents later withinside the hospital. On receipt of the FIR in this regard, a case became registered via way of the officer-in-rate, North Lakhimpur, and research became launched. On crowning glory of the research, the I/o submitted rate sheet towards five accused people alleging fee of offense beneath neath Section 147/341/302 IPC. 
  2. The accused/appellants have been placed on trial for a fee of offense beneath neath Section 302/34 IPC earlier than the discovered Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 70 (NL)/06. It can be referred to that out of five accused people, dealing with the trial, accused Mamud Ali and Abdul Barek have been acquitted via way of the discovered Sessions Judge because the prosecution did not show the accusation towards them past all affordable doubt. 
  3. At the end of the trial, the accused/appellants have been convicted beneath neath Section 302 r/w Section34 of IPC and sentenced to go through imprisonment for lifestyles and to pay nice of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to go through, in addition, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 
  4. The conviction of the Appellants Under Section 302/34 of the IPC via way of the Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, has been affirmed via way of the High Court, sentencing them to lifestyles imprisonment alongside nice and a default stipulation.

Issues of the Case:

  1. Are the Accused liable under S. 302 r/w 34? 
  2. If two of the Accused had been acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt on basis of the same evidence, was the conviction of the Appellants unjustified u/s 302/34? 


  • Elaborating on “common intention”, the Court stated that it includes numerous people appearing in unison to obtain a not unusual place motive even though their roles are perhaps different. It is beside the point if that function is energetic or passive as soon as no unusual place purpose is installed. The common purpose turned into held to be a remember of inference to be drawn from the statistics and instances of a case primarily based totally on the cumulative evaluation of the character of proof to be had in opposition to the participants. The basis for conviction on the idea of not unusual place purpose is primarily based totally on the precept of vicarious responsibility. It turned into held that the presence of a purpose to devote the act, if sufficiently installed could suffice to stable a conviction. The Hon’ble Court held that not unusual place purpose may be inferred if the character of proof presentations a prearranged plan and appearing in live performance under the plan.
  • Coming to the statistics of the existing case, the appellant no. 1 lay in wait alongside the alternative appellants who have been armed. Appellant no. 1 stopped the 2 deceased who have been coming back from the market. The attack started after the deceased had halted. That there has been a few disputes in regards to cash is obvious from the proof of the witnesses. Abdul Barek died immediately due to the brutal attack. Abdul Motin turned into injured withinside the first attack upon him with the aid of using appellant no. 3, and then he attempted to flee. Appellant number 1 alongside the alternative accused chased him, stuck maintain of him close to the residence of Mamud Ali in which he turned into brutally assaulted. Abdul Motin turned into then dragged with the aid of using the accused people to the vicinity in which Abdul Barek lay motionless. To our thoughts, no in addition proof is needed in regards to the life of not common purpose in appellant no. 1 to devote the offense in question. Therefore, the courtroom docket discovers no cause to provide any advantage to appellant no. 1 at the plea that there may be no function or act of attack attributed to him, denying the life of any not common purpose for that cause.
  • Thus, the courtroom docket observed no cause to intrude with the conviction and sentence of the Appellants and the attraction turned into dismissed.

Critical Analysis:

The pertinent query right here changed in regards to the appellant being charged u/s 34 regardless of others being acquitted. The courtroom docket elaborated that not common aim includes numerous folks performing in unison to reap a not common purpose, even though their roles can be different. The position can be energetic or passive is irrelevant, as soon as the not common aim is mounted. The basis for conviction on the premise of not common aim is primarily based totally on the precept of vicarious obligation through which someone is held to be accountable for the acts of others with whom he shared the not common aim. The presence of the intellectual detail or the aim to devote the act if cogently mounted is enough for conviction, without real participation withinside the assault. The courtroom docket in this situation very exactly took into attention the put up mortem file of the deceased in keeping with the guns that had been gathered in the course of the investigation. A very impartial method changed into followed through the courtroom docket in which regardless of the accidents and lack of existence induced to the deceased, Mamud Ali and Abdul Barekwere acquitted considering that there has been the loss of proof towards them. Minor inconsistencies and contradictions withinside the proof of the attention witnesses had been taken into consideration inconsequential and did now no longer intervene withinside the route of rendering justice to the deceased and their families. Overall it changed into a balanced judgment taking into attention the proof placed on record, the statements rendered through the witnesses, and the put up mortem reviews in mild justice, fairness, and right conscience.

🤞 Don’t miss any updates !

Subscribe to our email and newsletter, to get notified every time we upload something new for you

Your details with us are confidential, we promise!


🤞 Don’t miss any updates !

Subscribe to our email and newsletter, to get notified every time we upload something new for you

Your details with us are confidential, we promise!

Leave a Reply