Supreme Court Ruling on Vijendra Singh & Mahendra Singh: Common Intention in Murder Cases

The Supreme Court of India, in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Vijendra Singh & Mahendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. This judgment reaffirmed the principles of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and analyzed the role of credible eyewitness testimony in securing a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court upheld the conviction of Mahendra Singh while granting relief to Vijendra Singh on account of juvenility at the time of the offense.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on March 26, 1979, in Village Sarva, Uttar Pradesh, where Badan Pal was murdered near a tube-well owned by Charan Singh (PW-1). The prosecution alleged that the appellants—Vijendra Singh and Mahendra Singh—along with their accomplices, were responsible for the attack. The case was built on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, forensic evidence, and motive stemming from previous enmity.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Charan Singh at 10:30 PM on the day of the incident. The prosecution contended that the accused, armed with weapons, had entered the tube-well premises and shot the victim. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 34 IPC, leading to a trial before the Sessions Court.

Prosecution’s Arguments

• The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimonies of Charan Singh (PW-1), Gajpal (PW-2), and Tedha (PW-3), who claimed to have witnessed the incident.
• The motive for the murder was attributed to a long-standing feud between the accused and the deceased’s family.
• Eyewitnesses confirmed that the accused were present at the crime scene with weapons, indicating their participation in the attack.
• The forensic examination corroborated the prosecution’s theory, establishing that the injuries on the victim were caused by firearms.
• The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, arguing that the accused had the common intention to commit the murder.

Defense’s Arguments

• The defense questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses, claiming that they were interested witnesses with personal motives to implicate the accused.
• It was argued that no independent witnesses were examined, reducing the reliability of the prosecution’s claims.
• The accused contended that there was no overt act on their part, and merely being present at the scene did not constitute a crime under Section 34 IPC.
• The defense also challenged the timeline of events, arguing that the delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s version.
• Vijendra Singh’s counsel submitted that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and should be granted relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

Trial Court’s Findings

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The trial court relied on the prosecution’s evidence, ruling that the accused shared a common intention in the commission of the crime. The judgment noted:

“The presence of the accused at the crime scene, their conduct, and the surrounding circumstances clearly establish their role in the murder.”

High Court’s Decision

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the trial court’s ruling. It dismissed the defense’s argument that the witnesses were unreliable, stating that minor contradictions in testimony do not necessarily negate the credibility of witnesses. The High Court observed:

“Common intention can be inferred from conduct, prior meetings, and the nature of the assault. The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the accused acted in furtherance of a shared criminal intent.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding Section 34 IPC and the doctrine of common intention. The Court held that:

• Presence at the crime scene, coupled with active participation, establishes common intention.
• Eyewitness testimony, if found credible, forms a strong basis for conviction.
• Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not vitiate the prosecution’s case.
• The burden of proof to rebut circumstantial evidence lies on the defense.

The Court rejected Mahendra Singh’s appeal, reaffirming his life sentence. However, it acknowledged that Vijendra Singh was a juvenile at the time of the offense. As per the Juvenile Justice Act, he was entitled to relief.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The conviction of Mahendra Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is upheld. However, Vijendra Singh, being a juvenile at the time of the offense, shall be released, as he has served the maximum period permissible under juvenile law.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling sets a significant precedent in criminal law:

• Reaffirms the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 IPC.
• Clarifies that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate their credibility.
• Upholds the importance of circumstantial evidence in securing convictions.
• Recognizes the rights of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijendra Singh & Mahendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark judgment that reinforces key legal doctrines. While Mahendra Singh’s conviction was affirmed, Vijendra Singh received relief based on his age at the time of the offense. This case highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice while balancing legal principles and individual rights.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vijendra Singh & Mah vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-01-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category