Back
2004 Supreme(SC) 119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : Arijit Pasayat
State Of M.P.
Versus
Deshraj And Others
Case No. : 1055 of 1997
Date of Decision : 1/29/04
Advocates Appeared: Siddharth Dave : Vibha Datta Makhija : C.L.Sahu
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act and the need to establish a common intention among the accused.
Headnote:
Section 34 - Conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 323, Section 34; Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. It highlighted the need for establishing a common intention among the accused and the inference of such intention from the proved facts of the case. The court also clarified the essence of liability under Section 34 and its application in cases where it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party. The judgment focused on the distinction between different acts but with a common intention, and the liability of the accused under Section 34.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal challenging the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from a violent altercation resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to others. The Trial Court acquitted one accused and convicted the remaining accused under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was not justified and instead convicted the respondents 2 to 10 under Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the occurrence as a result of a sudden quarrel. The custodial sentence of 8 years was deemed appropriate. The appeal was allowed for respondents 2 to 10 and dismissed for respondent no. 11 Toran Singh.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correctness of the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the application of Section 34 in cases of joint liability, and the distinction between a sudden quarrel and the commission of a criminal act with a common intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need to establish a common intention among the accused and the inference of such intention from the proved facts of the case. It also considered the factual scenario of the altercation and the injuries inflicted in the course of a sudden quarrel.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State was allowed for respondents 2 to 10, and dismissed for respondent no. 11 Toran Singh.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.:--In this appeal challenge is to the correctness of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which affirmed the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in Short the IPC) as recorded by the Trial Court in respect of respondents 1 to 10 and did not accept prosecutions plea that it was a case covered by Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Eleven persons faced trial and the Trial Court held A-11 Toran Singh to be not guilty. The accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC for allegedly committing homicidal death of one Ramdin (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and causing injuries on Harbhan (PW-5), Brijbhan (PW-10) and Bina Bai PW9, Trial Court while acquitting accused Toran Singh held that the other accused persons were to be convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment . It appears respondent No. 1 - Daura had died on 15.6.1986 and that being so, the appeal stands abated so far he is concerned.
2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
On 26.5.1980, about 8.15 a.m. PW-5 lodged first information report with the police regarding alleged occurrence which took place on the previous day i.e. 25.5.1980. There was an exchange of words between Harbhan (PW-5) and Pratap Singh Thakur over payment of fare relating to hire of bullock cart. According to the informant, the rent was fixed at Rs. 15/- but Pratap Singh Thakur wanted to pay Rs, 13/-. When the exchange of words was going on. The accused persons armed with various weapons arrived there and accused Balkishan hit on the head of the deceased. The other accused persons assaulted him with various weapons. The deceased ran inside the house for protection. The accused persons continued to assault. When Brijbhan (PW-10) and Bina (PW-9) tried to rescue accused. Maharaj Singh struck on the head of Bina with farsa. Bhagwan Das and Badharj struck her with lathies. Maharaj Singh gave a farsa blow on the head of the informant. Bhagwan Das and Badhraj struck on the head with lathi on his left arm while accused Halka struck lathi on the right arm, jugna struck him on the shoulder and he fell down. Even then accused persons inflicted lathi blow. Accused Ramdas also assaulted Brijbhan (PW-10). On hearing his cries for help. Several villagers gathered. They also witnessed the assaults. Deceased breathed his last instantaneously and the informant became unconscious. Acting on the information given by the informant first information report was lodged. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and the injured persons were sent for medical examination. On the body of the deceased 8 injuries were noticed. One of them was the fracture of the skull. According to the doctor (PW-8) who conducted the post-mortem: the injuries on the skull were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. Some of them were also examined and the medical reports indicated that they had sustained injuries. The Trial Court held that the death was homicidal; but there was no definite material as to which of the injuries was inflicted by which accused. Additionally, it wad observed that there was fight between the parties and the accused persons had sustained injuries. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show as to which injury could be attributed to which accused. The case was not covered by Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. But he held there being several other injuries on the body of the deceased as noticed, case under Section 323/34 IPC was made out so far as the deceased is concerned as well as injuries noticed on PWs. 5, 9 and 10. As there was no definite material., so far accused Toran is concerned, he was ac
