Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Common intention – On the fateful night at about 3 a.m., the victim and his wife (eye witness) woke up and while the wife was doing preparations for cooking, the husband went to attend to the nature’s call – Wife heard his shouts, when she ran to the site she saw two accused assaulting her husband with an axe whereas the appellants had caught hold of him – She found him bleeding, he also told her that four of them had caught hold of him and assaulted him by an axe – He was taken to hospital, was declared brought dead – Appellants were acquitted by trial court noticing that the role attributed to them was of catching the victim without actual participation or use of weapon to assault and inflict injuries, other two accused were convicted – High Court dismissed the appeal of the convicted accused, while the acquittal of appellants was reversed – SLP filed by the two accused who used the axe was dismissed – Held: Concurrently both the Courts have held that the witnesses were reliable, more so the wife of the deceased – There is no quibble with the manner in which the incident occurred or the identifying of all the accused – The very presence of all the accused at 3.30 in the morning at the site with two of them holding an axe clearly shows that there can be no doubt about a common intention in behalf of what they were proposing to do – It was not an axe picked up at the site – Two of the accused were carrying the axes – It is not a sudden incident which had occurred – The premeditated intention was clear – Even at the site, the intentions had never changed as the appellants were holding the deceased while the other two attacked – The fact that only two of them used the axe while the other were two holding the deceased to ensure appropriate injuries being inflicted on the deceased would give no remission to the case of the appellants – No fault in High Court reversing the acquittal.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Scope of – Common intention – Evidence – Held: s.34 creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common intention – This would require the quality of evidence to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Common intention – Principle of constructive liability – Held: Dominant feature of s.34 is an element of intention and participation in action – This participation need not in all cases even be physical presence but a common intention – There has to be a simultaneous consensus of minds of the persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result – That intention can be formed at any time – s.34 does not create any distinct offence but it lays down the principle of constructive liability stipulating that the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention.
Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu v. State of Punjab (2022) 2 SCC 545 : 2022 (1) JT 96; Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 407 : [2010] 9 SCR
772 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.