Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu vs. The State [April 4, 2024]
Background
This Supreme Court case involved two appellants, Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu (A2) and Pradeep Dabas (A1), who were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The incident occurred during a birthday party, where an altercation between A2 and the deceased escalated, leading to the fatal shooting by A1. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of PW-19, the only eyewitness who did not turn hostile, and supporting circumstantial evidence.
Key Facts
The appellants and the deceased attended a party where they consumed alcohol.
A quarrel broke out between A2 (Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu) and the deceased.
A1 (Pradeep Dabas) initially tried to have A2 shoot the deceased by handing him a gun, but A2 did not do so.
A1 then took the gun back and shot the deceased, causing his death.
Most eyewitnesses turned hostile except PW-19, whose account formed the basis of the conviction.
The postmortem confirmed the deceased was intoxicated, and the sequence of events was corroborated by recovery and call data records.
Legal Arguments
Appellants: Argued that PW-19’s presence and conduct were doubtful and unnatural. They contended that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment, suggesting the offence should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), not murder (Section 302 IPC). For A2, it was argued there was no evidence of instigation or participation to attract Section 34 IPC (common intention).
State: Maintained that the evidence of PW-19 and corroborating circumstances justified the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court found no evidence that A2 had common intention or participated in the murder. The mere quarrel between A2 and the deceased did not establish the requirements for Section 34 IPC. The conviction and sentence against A2 were set aside.
Regarding A1, the Court observed there was no premeditation; the shooting occurred suddenly during a drunken quarrel. The weapon was not brought to the party with the intent to kill. Thus, the offence committed by A1 was held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC.
The sentence for A1 was modified to the period already undergone (about 10 years with remission), and the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was upheld. Both sentences were to run concurrently, and A1 was ordered to be released unless required in other cases.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importance of intent, premeditation, and the circumstances of the offence. It also reinforces that vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC cannot be applied without clear evidence of common intention.
Citation:
Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu vs. The State, Criminal Appeal Nos. 871-872 of 2022, Supreme Court of India, decided on April 4, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments