IMPORTANT POINT
If a criminal act is result of common intention then every person who did the criminal act with such intention would be responsible for total offence irrespective of the share which he had in its perpetration.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304 Part II/34-Conviction of two appellants A3 and A4 for offence by help of Section 34 IPC-Physical assault was given by A1 to deceased on abdomen and consequently deceased fell down on road with face upward and sustained bleeding injury on back of his head-Post mortem report showed that victim died of head injury-Sustainability of conviction of two appellants by common intention-A3 and A4 with A1 came on cycle and took up a quarrel with PW1 and PW2 and deceased who were also on cycle-Deceased, PW1 and PW2 ignored the assault and proceeded-Appellants with A1 chased them and again took up a quarrel-A1 then caused injury to deceased in abdomen-Conviction of appellants by applying Section 34 IPC suffered no illegality.
       Held : Section 34 IPC enacts that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons, is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The section thus lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is found in the existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The section is intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the act of individual members of a party and to prove exactly what part was played by each of them. It, therefore, enacts that once it is found that a criminal act has been committed by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for the criminal act as if it were done by him alone. It is thus an exception to the general rule of criminal jurisprudence that it is the primary responsibility of the person who actually commits a crime and only that person can be held guilty and punished in accordance with law for his individual act. (Para 9)
       We have, therefore, to see whether the death of deceased Nagamuni had been caused by the appellants in further of common intention to kill him. If it is so, the appellants cannot escape the liability contenting that Section 34 IPC had no application as no injury had been caused by the appellants to deceased Nagamuni or they had not intended to cause death of deceased Nagamuni. As observed hereinabove and believed by the trial court as well as by the High Court, present appellants (A3 and A4) came on cycle from Cuddalore Road and took up a quarrel with PW1, PW2 and deceased Nagamuni. Though the deceased and PW1 and PW2 ignored the assault and proceeded further, the appellants chased them towards the west on Pondy-Villianur Road and took up a quarrel again. A1 came there alongwith others and used violence and injuries were caused to deceased Nagamuni due to which he ultimately died. It was thus a clear case of doing of a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention. It was in the evidence of Dr. Balaraman that injury No. 5 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Taking into consideration the concession by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case would not be covered by Section 300 IPC, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were convicted by the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC. In our opinion, by applying Section 34 IPC and convicting appellants for an offence under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC, no error of law has been committed either by the trial court or by the High Court. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Thakker, J.-The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated October 20, 1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1991 confirming the order dated September 30, 1991 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1991 convicting accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for an offence punishable under Section 304 II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and directing all of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on June 3, 1990 at about 9.50 p.m., after closing the exhibition stall PONTEX, deceased Nadamuni, PW1 Subramanian, PW2 Thangavel, and their co-workers Ramalingam and Mohan were going on their cycles on Pondy-Villianur Road and took a turn in the round tanna at the junction of Cuddalore Road. Just at that time, Saravanan (A3) and Natarajan (A4)-appellants herein-, came on a cycle from Cuddalore Road, that is, from South to North and they dashed against the cycle of Ramalingam (PW1). Saravanan (A3) then abused Ramalingam (PW1) in filthy language. Notwithstanding abuses, PW1, PW2 and the deceased proceeded towards West on Pondy-Villianur Road and as they were nearing Swadeshi Cotton Mills, A3 and A4 came on the northern side of the road in the wrong direction from east to west near the main gate of Swadeshi Cotton Mills where there was a passage in the barricade for the pedestrians for crossing the road. Through that passage, A3 and A4 came near the complainant party and picked up a quarrel. The accused left the cycle on the other side of the road. It was alleged that A3 fisted PW1 on his cheek and pelted a stone at him which caused injury to PW1. PW2 came to his rescue, but he was also assaulted by A4. At that time, A1, A2, A5 and A6 came to the spot and A1 used violence on deceased Nadamuni. It was alleged that due to beating, deceased Nadamuni fell down on his back and sustained bleeding injuries. Seeing the same, the accused ran away. Nadamuni was shifted to hospital and within half an hour of his admission in the hospital, he died. PW14, Ravikumar, SI, Pondicherry obtained a complaint (EX.P1) from PW1 and registered a case being Crime No. 147 of 1990 under Sections 147, 341, 323, 302 read with Section 149 IPC against A1 to A6. An inquest over the dead body of Nadumani was conducted and the body was sent for post-mortem. PW11 Dr. Balaraman conducted the autopsy and found on the person of the deceased Nadamuni one abrasion of 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. over forehead near hair margin, 2 cms to the left of mid line; one contusion of 4 x 3 cms. over the inner aspect of right fore arm; one multiple small abrasion over right knee joint; one abrasion of 1 x 1 cm. over left knee joint. Transversely placed lacerated injury of 5 x 1 cm. bone deep present over back of head in the mid-line. According to his report, the patient died of head injury. He opined that the injuries found on the dead body were ante mortem in nature and were possible if the victim fell on rough surface. He also stated that injury No.5 (head injury) was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

3. All the accused were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Taking note of concession by the learned Public Prosecutor, that there was no evidence against A2, A5 and A6, the trial court acquitted them. With regard to A1, A3 and A4, the trial court observed that the evidence of PW1 showed that A3 and A4 dashed against his cycle near Venkata Subba Reddiar statue, but ignoring that conduct, PW1, PW2, deceased Nadamuni and others proceeded towards west. A3 and A4 gained entry through the wicket gate in the barricade on the southern side of the road leading east to west and prevented PW1 from proceeding further. A3 fisted on PW 1 s jaw. A3 and A4 assaulted PW1 and PW2 and A1 joined them and assaulted Nadamuni on his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1390

IMPORTANT POINTIf a criminal act is result of common intention then every person who did the criminal act with such intention would be responsible for total offence irrespective of the share which he had in its perpetration.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
If a criminal act is result of common intention then every person who did the criminal act with such intention would be responsible for total offence irrespective of the share which he had in its perpetration.