Criminality depends upon intention, not on victim’s identity, says court

While sentencing Roshan Lal to life imprisonment today, the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Shalini Nagpal took an exception from the police theory that the accused had no intention to kill the accused and defined that criminality depends upon intention, act and effect of the act of the offender, not on the victim’s identity.
It was argued by the defence counsel that the accused had no intention to kill Nukul Kumar, his accomplice, as the shot was aimed at auto driver Vijay Kumar, who resisted and had a narrow escape.
While the police had imposed the section of culpable homicide under Section 304 of the IPC, the court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and held that the accused was nursing ‘murderous intent’.
“If accused Roshan Lal aimed the fatal shot at auto driver Vijay Kumar but missed him due to the resistance offered and hit his accomplice deceased Nakul, in view of Section 301 of the IPC, the accused is deemed to have hit deceased Nakul with intention to kill him. The offence committed by Roshan is murder because of the previous felonious intent which the law transfers from one to the other. The accused, therefore, cannot escape from liability on the plea that he had no intention to commit the murder of Nakul,” said the court.
“The only intention of Roshan Lal was to cause death, the motive was to rob the auto driver Vijay Kumar of his belongings. They came armed with pistols in an armed manner and gun shot was aimed at a vital part. Thus, there should be an intention to murder or the knowledge that the injuries caused would result in death, although the injured may luckily escape death. The manner in which the offence was committed, both the accused and the co-accused pointing pistols at the head of the complainant, location of injuries and the weapon used all lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused was nursing murderous intent. It was only by chance that the 
complainant managed to ward off the shot aimed at his head,” said the court. Police witnesses are as good witnesses: Court While the defence counsel had stated that there were no independent witnesses in the case, the court held that “it (the court) does not subscribe to the archaic notion that statements of police officials are to be discarded only on account of their official status, as they are duty bound to depose  in favour of the prosecution,” the court said.
  “Police witnesses are as good witnesses as public persons and deserve the same amount of credit unless their evidence is shown to be intrinsically firm,” it said. It is a well established fact that witnesses from the public often shy away from the police investigation for fear of inviting wrath from the accused,” the court added.
Source;click here

Print Page