Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LAXMANJI AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided
5 December 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 171 · 2008 INSC 1404
Also cited as
  • (2008) 17 SCC 48 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 173, margin C

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the accused appellant nos. 1 to 3. Four persons faced trial and the trial court directed acquittal of accused No . 4. All the accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishabJe under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC'). Three appeals were filed before the High Court. Two of them were by accused No. 1 (Criminal Appeal No. 259/99) and the other Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1999 by accused nos. 2 and 3. Criminal Appeal 380/1999 was preferred by the State questioning acquittal of original accused No. 4.

p. 173, margin C

3

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

p. 173, margin F

4

On 26/10/1997, at around 15.30 hours, Nainaben, daughter of deceased -Bhamraji, had gone to fetch water from a nearby public tap. As there was no supply of water in the said tap at the relevant point of time, Nianaben went to the house original accused No. 3, which was situated in the neighbourhood of her house, to fetch the same. While Naina~n was fetching water, original accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 and some other persons began to tease Nainaben. Therefore, Nainaben returned to her house.

pp. 173–174, margin F

5

After returning to her house, Nainaben informed about the said incident to her father deceased Bhamarji. As a result thereof, the deceased-Bhamraji went to the house of original accused No. 3 and warned them not to re.peat such thing in future. Thereafter, the deceased left the house of original accused No. 3.

p. 174, margin A

6

Sometime later, all the four accused 'pe·rsons went to the house of deceased-Bhamraji and during that time, original. accused No. 1 was having a "Rampuri" -knife, original accused No. 4 was having a stick while the tWo other' accused persons, i.e. original accused Nos. 2 and 3, were unarmed. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased while original accused No. 1, who was having a knife, Inflicted knife blows on 'the right hand side region of the abdomen as also the thigh 'region of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deeeased·fell down and alltlie accused persons fled· the scene of offence. · 7; Thereafter, the deceased was taken to $ardarnagar Police Station in an Auto-rickshaaw. At that time, the P.S.I. of Sardarnagar Police Station, Kanaksing .Bhulabhai Rathod, advis~d that the deceased be taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for necessary treatment.- Accordingly, the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad, where he was given riecessary tr~atment.

p. 174, margin B

8

·On the basis of information given case was registered for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequen.tly the dying declaration of the ~eceased was sought to be·recorded. But before the dying declaration could be· recorded the decEiased succumbed to injuries on 27.10.1997. Therefore Section 302 IPC was added to the complaint. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons abjurd guilt, trial was held. The trial c.ourt. believed 'the .evidence "placed on record and convicted the [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 while directed No. 4. As noted above three appeals Court.

pp. 174–175, margin F

9

The High Court dismissed matter was placed for grant of leave was dismissed qua Chandan singh present appeal relates to other two counsel for the appellants submitted is therefore submitted that the appellant of offence punishable under Section IPC. Learned counsel for the State judgment.

p. 175, margin A

10

The basic question arises Section 34 can be applied so concerned. The factual scenario as that the appellant cannot be attributed to cause the murder of the deceased. under Section 34 it is not necessary conspiracy or pre-meditation. The formed in the course of occurrence. from the fact that there should be factors must be established :(i) participation .of accused in the commission common intention is proved but no individual accused, section 34 will it involves vicarious liability. But if participation of in the crime is proved and common 34 cannot be invoked. (See Jai Bhagwan Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083).

p. 175, margin C

11

In the background facts, would be Section 326 read with sentence of three years would meet

p. 175, margin G

12

The appeal is allowed with B.B.B.

p. 175, margin G