IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 ,326, 302r/w 34-Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of one person and injuries to several others for assaulting them with aruval and sticks-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeals thereagainst-Dismissed by High Court-Appeals-Plea of existence of variance between version in the FIR and version of PW-1 and PW-2 before Court- Difference in the version in FIR and version in evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 not very material so as to create a reasonable doubt with regard to participation of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 in the assault on deceased- Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, established beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1 used the aruval to strike at the head of deceased and that accused no.6 snatched the aruval from accused no.1 and struck on the head of deceased- Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 also established that accused no.7 struck the head of deceased by a stick- The result of all these acts of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 was death of deceased- Even though accused nos.1, 6 and 7 might have committed different acts, they cumulatively committed criminal act which resulted in the death of deceased -Hence accused nos.1, 6 and 7 held liable for the criminal act by virtue of Section 34, IPC (Para 11)
        Criminal Trial-Murderous assault by a blunt weapon -Evidence on record that accused no.1 and accused no.6 had used not the sharp side but blunt side of aruval and accused no.7 had used the stick in the assault on the deceased- This showed that Accused nos.1, 6 and 7 not had any intention to cause death of deceased- Nonetheless, injuries caused by accused nos.1, 6 and 7 were all on the head of deceased, including his parietal and temporal regions- Accused nos.1, 6 and 7, thus, had intention of causing bodily injury as was likely to cause death -Again, even Deceased died after nine days of assault - In the facts and circumstances of case Trial Court and High Court held not right in convicting appellants under Section 302, IPC-Appellants held liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34, IPC-Appeals allowed partly (Paras 12 to15)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of one person and injuries to several others for assaulting them with aruval and sticks. Trial Court convicted accused persons for said offences. Appeals thereagainst were Dismissed by High Court.
        B. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. The Supreme Court held that difference in the version in FIR and version in evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was not very material so as to create a reasonable doubt with regard to participation of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 in the assault on deceased. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, established beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1 used the aruval to strike at the head of deceased and that accused no.6 snatched the aruval from accused no.1 and struck on the head of deceased. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 also established that accused no.7 struck the head of deceased by a stick. The result of all these acts of accused nos.1, 6 and 7 was death of deceased. Even though accused nos.1, 6 and 7 might have committed different acts, they cumulatively committed criminal act which resulted in the death of deceased .Hence accused nos.1, 6 and 7 held liable for the criminal act by virtue of Section 34, IPC.
        B. Evidence on record showed that accused no.1 and accused no.6 had used not the sharp side but blunt side of aruval and accused no.7 had used the stick in the assault on the deceased. This showed that Accused nos.1, 6 and 7 not had any intention to cause death of deceased. Nonetheless, injuries caused by accused nos.1, 6 and 7 were all on the head of deceased, including his parietal and temporal regions. Accused nos.1, 6 and 7, thus, had intention of causing bodily injury as was likely to cause death .Again, even Deceased died after nine days of assault . In the facts and circumstances of case Trial Court and High Court held not right in convicting appellants under Section 302, IPC. Appellants were held liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34, IPC.
       Result : Appeals allowed partly

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J.-Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 575-576 of 2010.

2. These Criminal Appeals are against the judgment dated 12.12.2008 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal Nos.200-201 of 2008.

3. The facts very briefly are that on 16.11.2006 at 21:00 Hrs. a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged in Ganesh Nagar Police Station pursuant to a statement of Meyyappan recorded by the Sub- Inspector of Police. In this FIR, it is stated thus:

Mayyappan lived at the Thethampatti, Thiruvarangulam, alongwith his family and that there was a dispute pending between his family and the family of Arangan over land. On 15.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. Mariappan, who belongs to the family of Arangan, died and the family of Arangan wanted to take the burial procession through house street of Meyyappan and his family members but Meyyappan’s younger brother Chinnadurai and his father Rengaiah appealed to the important persons of the village saying that there was a separate public pathway for taking the dead body to the cremation ground and the village head and other villagers accordingly requested the members of the family of Arangan to carry the dead body of Mariappan through that public pathway. On 16.11.2006 at about 15:00 Hrs. Arangan and his brothers, Meyyappan, Murugan, Subbaiah, Chidambaram, Senthil, Selvam and others, armed with aruvals and sticks came to the family house of Meyyappan and asked his family members to come out and thereafter Arangan and Senthil delivered a cut on Chinnadurai and Selvam and others assaulted them with sticks and Chinnadurai was first taken to the government hospital and thereafter to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for treatment.

4. On the basis of this statement of Meyyappan, Ganesh Nagar Police Station Crime No. 795/06 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) was registered. Chinnadurai died at the hospital on 25.11.2006. Investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed against Arangan (accused no.1) under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC, against Meyyappan (accused no.2) under Sections 148 and 307 of the IPC, against Subbaiah (accused no.3) under Sections 147 and 307 of the IPC, against Chidambaram (accused no.4) under Sections 148 and 326 of the IPC, against Murugan (accused no.5) under Sections 148 and 326 of the IPC, against Senthil (accused no.6) under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against Selvam (accused no.7) under Section 147, 302 read with Section 34 and Section 325 of the IPC, against Thilak (accused no.8) under Sections 147 and 325 of the IPC and against Marthandam (accused no.9) under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court also convicted accused nos. 6 and 7 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court convicted the accused no.4 under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused nos. 1, 4 and 6 filed Criminal Appeal no. 200 of 2008 and accused no.7 filed Criminal Appeal no. 201 of 2008 before the High Court against their conviction and sentences, but by the impugned judgment the High Court sustained the conviction and the sentences. Accused no.7 has filed Criminal Appeal no. 1857 of 2009 and accused nos. 1 and 6 have filed the other Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 575-576 of 2010.

5. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 742

IMPORTANT POINT 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.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
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.