Penal Code, 1860 – s.396 r/w s.34 – Dacoity with murder – Five accused – Dacoity in shop of PW1 – Deceased was sleeping inside the shop – A2 held the legs of deceased, while A4 sat on his chest and strangled him to death – Trial court convicted all the five accused inter alia u/s.396 r/w. s.34 and sentenced them to imprisonment for ten years – High Court while affirming the conviction, enhanced the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to imprisonment for life – Held: In course of commission of dacoity, if a dacoit commits murder, all his companions who are conjointly committing dacoity, are liable to be convicted u/s.396, although they may have no participation in the murder beyond the fact of participation in the dacoity – Offence u/s.396 is to be viewed with seriousness, especially, when dacoits are armed, however, in the present case, the accused were not armed – Considering the long lapse of time, as the occurrence was of year 2002 and the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction u/s. 396 is maintained but sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon A1, A2 and A4 is modified as ten years, as directed by trial court. Sentencing – Imposition of sentence u/s.302 vis-a-vis u/s.396, IPC– Discretion vested with Court – Scope – Held: Obligation of Court in the matter of imposing sentence- “death or imprisonment for life” is in the same sequence both for ss.302 and 396 – Though offence u/s.396 is to be viewed with seriousness, for conviction under it, larger discretion is vested with the Court as there is possibility of imposing a penalty lesser than death or imprisonment for life– Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, s.396 r/w s.34. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 396 IPC prescribes punishment for dacoity with murder. In the course of commission of dacoity, if a dacoit commits murder, all his companions who are conjointly committing dacoity, are liable to be convicted under Section 396, although they may have no participation in the murder beyond the fact of participation in the dacoity. The obligation of the court in the matter of imposing the sentence - “death or imprisonment for life” is in the same sequence both for Sections 302 IPC and
396 IPC. Though the offence under Section 396 is to be viewed with seriousness, for the conviction under Section 396, larger discretion is vested with the court insofar as there is possibility of imposing a penalty lesser than death or imprisonment for life. [Para 9][666-C-D]
1.2 The offence under Section 396 is to be viewed with seriousness, especially, when the dacoits are armed. But in the case in hand, the accused were not armed. Accused A4 is alleged to have sat on deceased and pressed his nose and mouth and is alleged to have tightened his neck with the rope. The occurrence was of the year 2002. Considering the long lapse of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified as ten years as directed by the trial court. While maintaining the conviction under Section 396, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants-A1, A2 and A4 is modified as ten years of imprisonment. Since the appellants are stated to be in custody for more than ten years, they are ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. [Paras 10, 11][666-E-G]
Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC
771 : [2006] 2 SCR 793 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.