2008 Supreme(SC) 1215

2008(6) Supreme 268
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Aizaz & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2005
Decided on : 12-08-08

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307 read with 34 – Prosecution of accused persons four in number for firing at informant and deceased with country made pistols when they were going to attend a meeting of school and for causing death of deceased – Conviction by Trial Court – High Court in appeal held that evidence was inadequate so far as A4 was concerned, but confirmed conviction so far as appellants were concerned – Appeal – Plea of appellants that even if there was any animosity between A1 and deceased, A2 and A3 had nothing to do with him and that there was no use of any weapons by appellants Nos. 2 & 3 only allegation against them being that they held deceased and fell him on ground- Evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3 was clear and cogent – The trial court and High Court analysed evidence in great detail and came to hold that same had credence and appeared to be truthful – Nothing infirm could be pointed out to warrant rejection of evidence – Hence held that trial Court and High Court were justified in placing reliance on evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3 – So far plea relating to Section 34 was concerned it was held that Section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a common thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually – Courts cannot distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were possible as to part taken by each in crime – Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common object each and every person becomes responsible for act of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose; as the purpose is common, so must be the responsibility – All are guilty of the principal offence, not of abetment only-Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

       Common intention – Common intention’ implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan – Common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on spot as between a number of persons, with reference to facts of case and circumstances of situation – Though common intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of offence showing a pre-arranged plan and prior concert – Common intention pre-supposes prior concert – To constitute common intention, it is necessary that intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them – The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit offence for which they can be convicted – Prosecution must prove facts to justify an inference that all participants of the acts had shared a common intention to commit the criminal act which was finally committed by one or more of the participants – Mere presence of a person at the time of commission of an offence by his confederates is not, in itself sufficient to bring his case within the purview of Section 34, unless community of designs is proved against him. (Para 7)

       Facts of the Case :

       Accused persons four in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for firing at informant and deceased with country made pistols when they were going to attend a meeting of school and for causing death of deceased. Trial Court convicted accused persons. High Court in appeal held that evidence was inadequate so far as A4 was concerned, but confirmed conviction so far as appellants were concerned. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellants that even if there was any animosity between A1 and deceased, A2 and A3 had nothing to do with him and that there was no use of any weapons by appellants Nos. 2 & 3, only allegation against them being that they held deceased and fell him on ground.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3 was clear and cogent. The trial court and High Court analysed evidence in great detail and came to hold that same had credence and appeared to be truthful. Nothing infirm could be pointed out to warrant rejection of evidence. Hence held that trial Court and High Court were justified in placing reliance on evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3.So far plea relating to Section 34 was concerned it was held that Section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a common thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. Courts cannot distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were possible as to part taken by each in crime. Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common object each and every person becomes responsible for act of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose; as the purpose is common, so must be the responsibility. All are guilty of the principal offence, not of abetment only.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.