Allahabad HC Upholds Murder Convictions After Cousin’s Wife Is Stabbed To Death In Tomato-Crop Dispute, Sets Aside Jail Terms For Two Juvenile Accused

A dispute over a water spout and tomato crop preceded an assault in which Madhav stabbed Lachhmi Narain, his wife Malho, and their daughter Bitto; Malho died from her injuries.

The Sessions Court convicted Madhav under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC, and the other appellants under the corresponding provisions read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants challenged the convictions, raising, among other grounds, absence of a murder charge against the co-appellants, lack of common intention, private defence, provocation, evidentiary reliability and juvenility

Under Section 464 CrPC, an omission or defect in framing a charge does not invalidate a conviction unless it has caused a failure of justice or actual prejudice; the court relied on Kamil v. State of U.P. and the authorities discussed there

Section 34 IPC imposes joint liability where the criminal act is done in furtherance of a shared common intention, which may arise at the scene and be inferred from the accused’s conduct and circumstances

Sections 96–106 IPC govern private defence, which must be assessed by reference to necessity and proportionality; Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applies where grave and sudden provocation deprives the accused of self-control

Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required; the court relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras in assessing witness reliability

The court also gave effect to the Juvenile Justice Board’s declarations that Shiv Kumar and Sheo Ram were juveniles on the date of the offence

The court found no failure of justice from the omitted charge because the murder allegations were apparent from the prosecution case, were put to the co-appellants under Section 313 CrPC, and were defended at trial.

It inferred common intention from the co-appellants’ alleged restraint of Lachhmi Narain while Madhav stabbed him, treating that conduct as active facilitation of the assault.

It rejected private defence and provocation, relying on the injured witness’s account that Malho intervened unarmed to protect her husband, the absence of a stick recovered or suggested to the witnesses in cross-examination, and the fatal chest wound.

It accepted Lachhmi Narain’s injured-witness testimony and found no basis to disturb the rejection of DW-1’s account.

It also rejected the ante-timing challenge to the FIR, accepting the explanation for its registration at 23:15 hours.

Madhav’s and Munna’s sentences were confirmed, with directions that they be taken into custody to serve their remaining sentences.

The substantive imprisonment sentences of Shiv Kumar and Sheo Ram were set aside as eclipsed by their established juvenility; their records were remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur, for appropriate orders.