(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/34, 304 Part II – Murder – Nature of offence –Neither the prosecution or defence, nor the court, have focussed on the role of A-3 as evidenced by the oral and documentary evidence – There is nothing to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder the deceased – In fact, both the Courts have mechanically drawn an inference against A- 3 under Section 34 of the Act merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused – As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is “cardio pulmonary arrest due to transaction spinal cord at atlanto occipital joint” – The atlanto occipital joint is at the back of the neck, which is the exact place where A-1 assaulted the deceased with the help of an axe – This axe was then taken by A-2 and thereafter, by A-4, who also assaulted the deceased – All the eye-witnesses are clear in this account – In other words, it was only A-3 who never took the axe in his hand – He only used a stone to assault the deceased – Held that considering the statements of the eye-witnesses, coupled with the post-mortem report, it is not possible to contend that A-3 would have had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, he cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. (Para 23 to 25)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 80 SC
[JT 2024 (2) SC 270 = 2024 INSC 87]
Velthepu Srinivas And Others Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) And Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 2852 of 2023-Decided on 06-02-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-80-SC.pdf
