Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

A. Mohnam Vs. State of Kerala

A. Mohnam;A. Murukan vs State of Kerala;state of Kerala

Disposition Appeal Party Allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Feb 13, 1989
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/638412

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal Nos. 107-08 of 1989
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal Party Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Natarajan, JJ.] - Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34/302 and 323 — Common intention to be gathered from one's own overt acts and not from what others did subsequently — Appellants causing simple injuries with sticks — Thereafter main accused inflicting fatal injuries with ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal Party Allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 323, 302, 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Mohnam;A. Murukan

Respondent

State of Kerala;state of Kerala

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 323, 302, 34
Reported In
1990Supp(1)SCC66

Excerpt

- [a.m. ahmadi and; s. natarajan, jj.] - penal code, 1860 - sections 34/302 and 323 - common intention to be gathered from one's own overt acts and not from what others did subsequently - appellants causing simple injuries with sticks - thereafter main accused inflicting fatal injuries with a chopper - held, appellants could not be said to have shared common intention with main accused -- heard counsel for the appellants and the state. accordingly, we set aside that conviction of these appellants (accused 2 and 3) under section 302 read with section 34, ipc, 1860 and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded therefor and instead award them conviction under section 323 read with section 34, of ipc.a.m. ahmadi and; s. natarajan, jj.1. special leave granted in both the matters. heard counsel for the appellants and the state.2. having regard to the evidence in the case, we are of the view that the appellants (accused 2 and accused 3) cannot be said to have shared a common intention with accused 1 to commit the murder of the deceased. their attack on the deceased was only with sticks and it had caused only simple injuries to the deceased. it was thereafter accused 1 had come with a chopper and inflicted several injuries on the deceased which had brought about his death. in such circumstances, the common intention has to be gathered from their overt acts and not from what accused 1 did subsequently and hence they can be convicted only under section 323 read with section 34 ipc, 1860.3. accordingly, we set aside that conviction of these appellants (accused 2 and 3) under section 302 read with section 34, ipc, 1860 and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded therefor and instead award them conviction under section 323 read with section 34, ipc. as the appellants have already been in jail for more than four years, the appellants are ordered to be released from custody. accordingly, the appellants will be set at liberty forthwith unless their confinement is required in connection with some other case against them. to the extent indicated above, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are modified and their appeals will stand allowed in part.

Full Judgment

A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Natarajan, JJ.

1. Special leave granted in both the matters. Heard counsel for the appellants and the State.

2. Having regard to the evidence in the case, we are of the view that the appellants (accused 2 and accused 3) cannot be said to have shared a common intention with accused 1 to commit the murder of the deceased. Their attack on the deceased was only with sticks and it had caused only simple injuries to the deceased. It was thereafter accused 1 had come with a chopper and inflicted several injuries on the deceased which had brought about his death. In such circumstances, the common intention has to be gathered from their overt acts and not from what accused 1 did subsequently and hence they can be convicted only under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, 1860.

3. Accordingly, we set aside that conviction of these appellants (accused 2 and 3) under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, 1860 and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded therefor and instead award them conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC. As the appellants have already been in jail for more than four years, the appellants are ordered to be released from custody. Accordingly, the appellants will be set at liberty forthwith unless their confinement is required in connection with some other case against them. To the extent indicated above, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are modified and their appeals will stand allowed in part.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial