The Incomparable Court as of late expelled the criminal offer recorded by Nitya Nand, certifying his conviction beneath Segments 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Correctional Code (IPC). The offer, stemming from a 1992 kill case, included the slaughtering of Satya Narain by a gather of people, counting Nitya Nand. The case has long been disagreeable, with the appealing party looking for quittance on the grounds of procedural slips and deficiently prove.
Case Background
The occurrence happened on September 8, 1992, when Satya Narain was lethally ambushed by a bunch of people, counting the appealing party, whereas he was at the Ganga Ghat close Ambhagarh Akhada in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution's case, as sketched out within the To begin with Data Report (FIR), point by point how Satya Narain was assaulted by four people, equipped with blades and a kanta, whereas the appealing party let go from a country-made gun to anticipate others from mediating.
The root cause of the crime was said to be a family dispute over property between Satya Narain and his brother, Shree Dev, with whom the appellant is related. The property was willed to Satya Narain's sons, which caused resentment leading to the fatal assault
Ground for appeal
Nitya Nand's appeal to the Supreme Court raised several issues. He argued that: No firearm injuries were found on the deceased, and there was no recovery of the country-made pistol, thereby casting doubt on his involvement. Crucial witnesses, including Kuldeep Kumar (who wrote the FIR) and Laxmi Narain (the deceased's brother), were not examined during the trial. His conviction was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
Supreme Court Ruling
The arguments have no merit, according to the Supreme Court. Section 149 IPC, which states that an individual need not personally commit an offence in order to be held accountable if they were a member of an unlawful assembly with a common intent to commit a crime, was highlighted by the Court.
The Court further emphasized that on cross-examination, the eyewitnesses' testimony—who observed the appellant fire a shot into the air to aid the attackers' escape—was unwavering and consistent . Inability to Recover Suicidal to the Prosecution The Court decided that the prosecution's case was not jeopardized, despite admitting that the firearm's non-recovery was a gap in the evidence.
Conclusion
The Incomparable Court's expulsion of the offer underscores the rule that individuals of an illegal gathering can be held at risk for violations committed by others in assistance of a common objective. This administering strengthens the concept of collective duty beneath Indian criminal law and certifies the lower courts' discoveries that the appealing party played an dynamic part within the kill of Satya Narain.
This case highlights the importance of procedural decency, the significance of witness declaration, and the scope of Segment 149 IPC in guaranteeing equity, indeed when coordinate evidence against an person could seem restricted. The judgment eventually serves as a update that all members in an illegal gathering are similarly responsible for the activities of the bunch.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court Nitya Nand Sections 148 302/149 IPC unlawful assembly vicarious liability conviction murder Satya Narain property dispute country-made pistol Allahabad High Court eyewitness testimony Section 149 IPC collective responsibility procedural fairness non-recovery of firearm.
