CASE NAME	Suresh Chandra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh,  2005 SCC (CRI) 1364
CITATION	AIR 2005 SC 3120, 2005 (6) SCC 130, 2005 AIR SCW 3610, 2005 ALL. L. J. 2707, 2006 ALL MR(CRI) 594, 2005 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 2 637, (2005) 33 ALLINDCAS 757 (SC)
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari
APPELLANT	Suresh Chandra
RESPONDENT	State of Uttar Pradesh
DECIDED ON	21st July 2005

INTRODUCTION

The tragic and brutal crime at the center of the Suresh Chandra versus State of Uttar Pradesh case is rape and murder. This happened in 2001, when Suresh and others were accused of horrific acts, such as raping two women and killing one person. After Suresh’s trial, the judge handed down a death sentence. Despite the defendants’ appeals, the High Court maintained their conviction and death penalty. In the end, the matter made it to the Supreme Court, where the main focus was on the accused’s role and level of complicity in the crimes and how Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with joint liability, was applied.

Medical records and witness statements were among the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, and the court deliberated on the consequences of common intention as outlined in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the murders and rapes to have taken place, the prosecution had to show that the defendants planned them together. However, the court stressed that there has to be proof that each accused was actively involved in the actions for their participation to be considered significant.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Suresh’s murder conviction while clearing him of rape highlights the heinousness of the act. The case also highlighted the architecture of death penalty laws, with an emphasis on the most unusual justification for capital punishment. Life sentences were handed down to the appellants after they were found guilty of murder and attempted murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. The individuals who were found not guilty were convicted on lesser charges pertaining to the incident.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The sad event that took place during a marriage ceremony in the village of Tikari, Aligarh District, on 20th February 1977 lies at the heart of the case. A small argument between the guests at the wedding reception escalated into a violent incident that claimed the lives of Ravindra Singh and Mahendra Singh.

On the night of the event, the prosecution argued, the bridegroom’s party, known as the Barati, had assembled in Vikram Singh’s courtyard, or Chaupal, for a dance performance. The Baratis retired inside for the night after supper, but the acquitted Bhikari and Nawab Singh remained on the verandah with other Baratis. Ravindra Singh may have been joking when he said that the dancers were exhausted and suggested that the Baratis get down to dancing, but it irritated a few Baratis. This allegedly escalated into a fight, with Bhikari and Nawab Singh encouraging the appellants Mulayam Singh, Suresh Chandra, and Bhuvnesh Pratap to assault the other participants.

The appellants, who were armed (as was customary in rural regions back then), fatally shot Ravindra Singh and Mahendra Singh. In addition to Dwarika Prasad, Ujagar Singh, and Karua, three more people were hurt in the incident. Later that night, the deceased’s brother, Nripendra Singh, filed the report.

Two gunshot wounds were found on Ravindra Singh’s chest and back, according to postmortem examinations, while a handgun wounded Mahendra Singh’s abdomen. Ballistic investigation verified that the cartridges discovered at the site were identical to the firearms taken from the appellants, and the rifles themselves were retrieved. Mulayam Singh, Suresh Chandra, and Bhuvnesh Pratap’s rifles were positively identified by the cartridges that came out of them. A damaged butt and trigger guard were observed on the seized gun from Suresh Chandra.

Life sentences were handed down to the appellants after they were found guilty of murder and attempted murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. The individuals who were found not guilty were convicted on lesser charges pertaining to the incident.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the conviction could be converted to one for the offense punishable under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The appellants’ learned counsel argues that the incident occurred suddenly and without any premeditation or prior concert, and the resulting attack on the victims was unintentional. Consequently, the offense would be appropriately classified as Exception 4, punishable under Section 304 Part I or II. 
• The learned counsel representing Suresh Chandra has contended that his case is on a different foundation and that he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It is noted that the butt and trigger guard of his pistol were discovered in a state of disrepair, as indicated by the recovery memo. Consequently, he argues that it is reasonable to infer that the pistol was non-functional, as it would have been damaged during the subsequent altercation. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The respondent contended that Suresh Chandra, along with the other accused, had committed a premeditated and brutal crime that encompassed homicide and rape. The prosecution aimed to determine whether the accused acted with a common intention, as defined in Section 34 of the IPC, which would indicate that they shared a unified objective in perpetrating the heinous acts. The respondent underscored that the accused’s actions were executed with a clear and deliberate intention to inflict injury and death upon the victims, and the evidence presented indicated that all parties involved in the crime collaborated to commit the offense.
• Furthermore, the respondent contended that the imposition of the death penalty was justified by the circumstances of the crime, which included the severe injuries inflicted and the extreme brutality of the perpetrators. It was argued that the offense came under the “rarest of the rare” category. The respondent emphasized that the crime was particularly egregious due to the fact that the accused’s actions were not only violent but also exhibited a depraved and callous disregard for human life.
• The respondent also emphasized the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and ballistic evidence that established a connection between the accused and the crime site. 

JUDGMENT

Initially, the acceptance of the aforementioned plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would undermine the argument that the pistol was non-functional. Secondly, it is improbable that all three firearms, which the appellants were responsible for handling, would have been accidentally discharged at approximately the same time. Without hesitation, we reject this assertion.
In conclusion, the evidence is overpowering, including the testimony of injured witness PW.5, which indicates that all three appellants fired at the victims. They are unable to circumvent the penalty for homicide, even if they fired indiscriminately without targeting any specific individual. 

The ballistic expert’s report beyond reasonable doubt substantiates the prosecution’s version, the cartridges discovered at the scene of the offense, and the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased and others. The appellants may not have intended to attack the individuals in attendance at the wedding venue or may not have had a preconceived plan to do so. Nevertheless, the three appellants, who were incensed by the events that transpired at the venue, intentionally discharged the firearms they possessed in order to inflict harm on the deceased. It is an instance in which the common intention emerged on the spot. 

The appellants’ extreme action of firing at victims, resulting in injuries to their vital organs, would clearly illustrate the shared intention that drove them to engage in the shooting rampage in the immediate moment. 

The facts and circumstances of this case appear to partially justify the remission of the sentence. However, this Court cannot mitigate the life imprisonment sentence, as the appellants have been held guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The appellants have the option to petition the State Government/Governor of the State for the commutation or remission of their sentence. 

CONCLUSION

The key issue in this instance was the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in relation to the shared intention of the accused in committing rape and homicide. The prosecution contended that the accused conspired to commit these atrocious acts in concert. Medical reports, forensic findings, and testimonies from witnesses were submitted to substantiate the allegations. The prosecution’s argument emphasized the brutality of the crimes and argued for the death penalty, claiming that the offense was classified as the “rarest of the rare” due to the excessive violence involved.

On the other hand, the defense questioned the shared intention of the accused and questioned the sufficiency of the evidence connecting the accused to the crime, particularly in relation to the rape charge. The court conducted an analysis that evaluated the extent of each accused’s involvement in the commission of the crime. It determined that the conviction for murder was appropriate in light of the severity of the offense; however, it cleared the accused of the rape charges due to insufficient evidence.

The case ultimately underscored the significance of clear and compelling evidence in establishing common intention under Section 34 IPC. It also reaffirmed the threshold for the imposition of the death penalty, underscoring that such a sentence is reserved for the most exceptional of uncommon cases, in which the crime exhibits exceptional brutality and depravity. The court’s emphasis on ensuring that each element of the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt before passing a severe sentence is evident in the absolution of the accused on certain charges.

In summary, the judgment is a significant reminder of the judicial process’s role in evaluating the severity of a crime, the importance of evidence, and the meticulous deliberation of the of the death penalty. The case also emphasizes the importance of the courts in maintaining a balance between the severity of punishment and the legal principles of justice.