NARENDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge the in present appeal is the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 24.7.2010 and 18.8.2010, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:

(3.) At the very outset, Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants would be challenging the conviction and order of sentence only to the extent that the alleged offence committed by the appellants would not fall under Section 302 IPC but under Section 304 Part I IPC. Additionally, qua appellant No. 1 Narender, contention raised by the counsel was that the role, which is ascribed to appellant No.1, Narender was that he caught hold of the deceased, by his feet while the deceased was being assaulted by appellant No. 2 Mohd. Guddu and, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant No.1 shared common intention with appellant No. 2 to commit the murder of the deceased. In order to bring home the point that offence, which would be made out against the appellants would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, submission made by learned counsel for the appellants can be outlined as under:-