Read Time: 04 minutes

Supreme Court by an order dated August 5, 2021 altered conviction under Section 302 to Section 324 IPC, holding that Kirpan is normally carried by members of a specific community, as a part of their religious belief – The fact that it can also be used as a weapon of offence, does not ipso facto make it a weapon of offence.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, while allowing the appeal observed that co-accused suddenly pulling out his kirpan to assault the deceased would not bind the appellant on the basis of common intention, under the charges of Section 302 IPC.

The appellant stood convicted under Sections 302, 34 IPC for an occurrence which took place on June 8, 1999. The first accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC.

The two accused were fighting amongst themselves while playing cricket in the morning of the fateful day.

The deceased tried to intervene to pacify.

The same night at about 10:00 pm, the deceased is said to have been assaulted with a kirpan by the first accused while the appellant held the deceased.

Counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no evidence to prove common intention – The appellant only intended to thrash the deceased. Moreover, he was unaware of the fact that the first accused was carrying a kirpan at the first place.

Reliance was placed on Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (1) SCC 174 and Matadin vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (7) SCC 216.

It was added that at best the appellant may be liable for offences under Section 324 read with Section 110 of the IPC.

While altering the conviction Court also noted that even if the appellant held the deceased, it was only in order to ensure that the deceased was thrashed properly so that in future he would remain cowed down. It is not possible to draw any inference that by his utterances the appellant intended a murderous assault on the deceased.

Case Title: Om Prakash Singh v. State of Punjab