Section 34 IPC is applicable even if the identity of all the members of an unlawful assembly is not established, provided it is found that the murder was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - SECTION 302/34 IPC - CONVICTION OF TWO ACCUSED OUT OF SIX CHARGED - ACQUITTAL OF FOUR OTHERS - WHETHER JUSTIFIED - SECTION 34 IPC - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Six persons, including the two appellants, were charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that all six accused came to the spot with the common object of killing the victim, Tarlok Singh. Accused 5 was riding a mare and carrying a spear, while the remaining five accused were on foot and armed with kirpans or swords. The victim was brutally attacked and later his body was found with the head severed. The Sessions Judge acquitted four of the accused, finding that the witnesses had not correctly identified them. The High Court upheld the convictions of the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the appellants could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC even though four of the six accused were acquitted. The court found that the murder was committed by six culprits including the two appellants in furtherance of the common intention of all. The court relied on the principle that each member of an unlawful assembly is responsible for the acts of all other members done in furtherance of the common intention.
Issues: Whether the appellants could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC even though four of the six accused were acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 34 IPC is intended to meet cases where members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all but it was difficult to prove exactly the part played by each of them. Once such participation is established, Section 34 is at once attracted. In the present case, the courts below had recorded the clear finding that accused 1 and 5 participated in the offence with four other unknown culprits. Though six named persons were charged with the offence, there was a mistake in the identity of three of the accused and with regard to another accused, the benefit of doubt was given as no independent corroboration was available. But it admits of no doubt that Tarlok Singh was attacked and brutally murdered on April 27, 1965 by six culprits. Accused 1 & 5 were two of the six culprits who participated in the attack. The murder was committed by six culprits including accused 1& 5 in furtherance of the common intention of all. Accused l and 5 shared the common intention with the four other culprits whose identity has not been established. Though it is not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was committed by six culprits including accused l and 5 in furtherance of the common intention of all and each of them is liable for the murder as though it had been committed by him alone.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of the appellants were upheld.

Judgement

BACHAWAT, J.:- Six persons including the two appellants were tried for offences under Section 148, Section 302 read with S. 149 and S. 201 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Tarlok Singh son of Amar Singh of Purana Pind. The six accused were (1) Jagir Singh of Purana Pind, (2) Tarlok Singh of Udhoke, (3) Wassan Singh of Purana Pind (4) Jagir Singh of Bhumbli, (5) Dyal Singh of Dalla and (6) Pritam Singh of Dalla. Tarlok Singh deceased was brutally attacked on the thrashing floor of Amar Singh at a distance of eighty feet from his Haveli near the outskirt of village Purana Pind on April 27, 1965 at about 4 p. m. The prosecution case was that all the six accused came to the spot with the object of killing Tarlok Singh, accused 5 was riding a white mare and carrying a spear, and the remaining five accused were on foot and were armed with kirpans or swords. Accused 5 shouted a challenge saying that Tarlok Singh must not be spared, accused 4 gave two kirpan blows on his feet, accused 1 gave a sword blow on his neck and the other accused caused injuries to him with their swords. When the victim was almost dead, he was placed on the mare in front of accused 5 and all the six accused proceeded towards village Manoharpura. At a distance of about a mile near the canal minor, the body of the victim was thrown on the ground and accused 2 chopped the head from his body. Accused 2 and 5 rode away on the mare with the severed head wrapped in the chaddar and turban of the victim and the other accused followed on foot. The motive for the attack was that Munsha Singh father of accused 1 was murdered in July, 1964. Amar Singh, Tarlok Singh deceased and one Sawan Singh were tried for the murder but they were convicted of a lesser offence for which they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. They served out their sentences and returned to village Purana Pind about two months before April 27, 1965. The first information report of the murder of Tarlok Singh was lodged on April 27, 1965 at 5-30 p. m. The investigating officer reached the spot at about 6-30 p. m. The trunk of the dead body was recovered at a place about a mile distant from village Purana Pind near the canal minor. The head was never recovered. The identity of the trunk was satisfactorily established. The post-mortem examination revealed six injuries. In the opinion of the medical witness, the death resulted from the cutting of the neck caused with some sharp-edged heavy weapon. The first information report stated that the assailants of Tarlok Singh were accused 1, 3, 5, 6, one Harbans Singh and one Jarnail Singh who were then said to have played the parts later ascribed to accused 2 and 4. All the six accused and Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh were charge-sheeted. The committing magistrate discharged Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh and committed the six accused to the Sessions Court for trial. The four eye-witnesses examined at the trial were Amar Singh, father of the victim, Joginder Singh son of Amar Singh, Bachan Singh, son-in-law of Amar Singh and Chhinda whose maternal uncle s daughter was betrothed to the victim. Amar Singh was injured by one of the culprits when he tried to intervene in the attack on his son. He made contradictory statements with regard to the identify of the culprit who had injured him and the six culprits who had participated in the attack on his son. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, 3, 4 and 6. He was not satisfied that the witnesses had correctly identified accused 2, 4 and 6. He gave accused 3 the benefit of doubt as the evidence of the witnesses regarding his presence was not corroborated by other evidence. The courts below found that there could be no mistake about the identity of accused 1 and 5. With regard to their identity, the veracity of Amar Singh was not shaken and the evidence of the three other eye-witnesses was consistent positive and unimpeachable. Accused 1 made a disc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1967 Supreme(SC) 94

Section 34 IPC is applicable even if the identity of all the members of an unlawful assembly is not established, provided it is found that the murder was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Cases Referred (3)