2000 JTR(SC) 2012
2001 2 AICLR 163 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 4634 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 183 ; 2001 42 AllCriC 342 ; 2001 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 749 ; 2001 CriLR 91 ; 2001 1 Crimes(SC) 20 ; 2001 CrLJ 740 ; 2001 1 JCC 22 ; 2001 1 JCR(SC) 169 ; 2001 1 JT 31 ; 2001 1 RCR(Cri) 176 ; 2001 1 RLW(Raj) 58 ; 2000 8 Scale 237 ; 2001 2 SCC 292 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 344 ; 2001 1 SCJ 412 ; 2000 Supp5 SCR 545 ; 2001 1 SLT 204 ; 2001 KHC 1993 ; 2000 8 Supreme 266
2000(8) Supreme 266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Pipal Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1990
Decided on 12-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mrs. K. Sarda Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Rupinder Wasu and Rajiv Dutta, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Even where some out of several accused are acquitted it is open to the court to consider whether remaining accused were guilty of an offence by involving Section 34 IPC by reason of having committed the offence along with others acquitted.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34, S.300
(A) The accused were prosecuted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death during an assault while entering their own land. Section 34 addresses acts done in furtherance of common intention, and here the accused were held to have approached the deceased while armed with a common design to commit the offence. Section 300 defines murder, and the injuries inflicted were held fatal in the ordinary course of nature, satisfying the mens rea and actus reus elements. Section 304 Part II was considered but not applied, as the conduct fell within murder provisions.
(B) Key principles include: where multiple accused are involved, acquittal of some does not preclude conviction of others if evidence supports common intention under Section 34; common intention, nature of injuries, weapon, and background are relevant; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 is sustainable even if others are acquitted; Section 304 Part II applies only to lesser forms of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Facts of the case:
The accused entered their own land along with others and were confronted, leading to an altercation where they caused fatal injuries to Sardara Ram and injured Sukhdev Raj. The deceased sustained a T-shaped incised wound and a second deep incised wound, both fatal. Evidence indicated one accused caused the first injury and another the second, acting in concert with common intention.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the accused approached the deceased while armed with a common intention, inflicted fatal injuries, and left the scene together. The trial courts conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was upheld. The court rejected the contention that Section 304 Part II applied and held that acquittal of other accused did not affect the liability of the appellants.
Issues:
(1) Whether acquittal of some accused bars conviction of others under Section 302 read with Section 34. (2) Whether the evidence supports conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 rather than Section 304 Part II.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that common intention under Section 34 can be established on the basis of collective approach, armed presence, nature of injuries, and conduct, and that conviction under Section 302 is sustainable even if others are acquitted. The facts did not warrant Section 304 Part II.
Result:
Appeals dismissed; appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.
(A) The accused were prosecuted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death during an assault while entering their own land. Section 34 addresses acts done in furtherance of common intention, and here the accused were held to have approached the deceased while armed with a common design to commit the offence. Section 300 defines murder, and the injuries inflicted were held fatal in the ordinary course of nature, satisfying the mens rea and actus reus elements. Section 304 Part II was considered but not applied, as the conduct fell within murder provisions.
(B) Key principles include: where multiple accused are involved, acquittal of some does not preclude conviction of others if evidence supports common intention under Section 34; common intention, nature of injuries, weapon, and background are relevant; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 is sustainable even if others are acquitted; Section 304 Part II applies only to lesser forms of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Facts of the case:
The accused entered their own land along with others and were confronted, leading to an altercation where they caused fatal injuries to Sardara Ram and injured Sukhdev Raj. The deceased sustained a T-shaped incised wound and a second deep incised wound, both fatal. Evidence indicated one accused caused the first injury and another the second, acting in concert with common intention.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the accused approached the deceased while armed with a common intention, inflicted fatal injuries, and left the scene together. The trial courts conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was upheld. The court rejected the contention that Section 304 Part II applied and held that acquittal of other accused did not affect the liability of the appellants.
Issues:
(1) Whether acquittal of some accused bars conviction of others under Section 302 read with Section 34. (2) Whether the evidence supports conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 rather than Section 304 Part II.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that common intention under Section 34 can be established on the basis of collective approach, armed presence, nature of injuries, and conduct, and that conviction under Section 302 is sustainable even if others are acquitted. The facts did not warrant Section 304 Part II.
Result:
Appeals dismissed; appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-Pipal Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 1999 and Mukhtiar Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1999, were accused along with several others for having caused the death of Sardara Ram and injuries to Sukhdev Raj when they were entering their own land. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants along with certain others to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for murder and further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for simple hurt under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal the High Court reappraised the evidence adduced before the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the appellants had a common cause and had come together duly armed at a place which was in possession of the deceased with the common intention to commit the crime and they left the scene of the occurrence also together with their respective weapons. The High Court recorded the two injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, viz., (i) T-shaped incised wound 15 cms x 2 cms by 10 x 2 cms on right parietal region, underlying bone, scalp and brain were cut, and (ii) incised wound 5 x 1.5 cms, 5 cms behind injury No. 1 and that injury No. (ii) was bone deep and the doctor opined that injuries Nos. (i) and (ii) were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. The evidence put forth before the court was that while Pipal Singh caused the first injury, injury No. 2 was said to have been caused by Mukhtiar Singh. That evidence had been believed by the High Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants put forth two contentions, namely, (1) the effect of acquittal of other accused in the case on sentencing accused under Section 302 IPC by involving Section 34 IPC and (2) as regards the offence stated to have been committed by each of them.
3. Even where some out of several accused are acquitted it is open to the court to consider whether remaining accused were guilty of an offence by involving Section 34 IPC by reason of having committed the offence along with others acquitted. With a view to determine the common intention, the nature of injuries, background of the incident and the nature of weapon used to cause the injuries besides other factors are needed to be considered. There is no principle in law which prevents from adopting that course set out above by us. In the circumstances arising in the case the High Court has done the necessary exercise in finding out whether the accused needed to be convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. We find no infirmity in the same.
4. So far as the evidence alleged against the accused is concerned and the manner in which they have committed the same, it is clear that Section 304 Part II would not arise as rightly held by the High Court. So neither of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants can survive close scrutiny and stand rejected.
5. The appeals are dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeals dismissed.
**************