SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1934 Supreme(Cal) 361

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Patterson, J., Cunliffe, J.
Emperor - Appellant
Versus
Motilal Mallik - Respondent
Decided On : 01-10-1934

The judgment established the principle that individuals can be held liable for a criminal act if it is done in furtherance of a common intention, as per Section 34 of the IPC.

Headnote:

Section 34 - Murder - 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an incident where the accused and his companions were found armed and were challenged by villagers. A struggle ensued, resulting in the shooting of two villagers, one fatally, and the accused being overpowered.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the common intention of the accused and his companions to commit a crime involving violence.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the accused and his companions had a common intention to commit murder, and whether the accused's conduct indicated such intention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused and his companions had set forth together with the intention of committing a crime involving violence, and their subsequent actions demonstrated a common intention to disable and potentially kill the villagers who challenged them.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence for the accused.

JUDGMENT

Patterson, J. - This reference is for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on one Moti Lal Mallick, on his conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. There is also an appeal by the said Motilal Mallick against his conviction and sentence under the above sections as also against his conviction under certain provisions of the Arms Act, in respect of which no separate sentences were passed. The trial was before a tribunal composed of three Commissioners appointed by the Local Government under the provisions of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1925 and this being so, an appeal lies to this Court on the facts as well as on questions of law. One Kalachand Shaha was tried along with Motilal Mallick, but was acquitted, and although his case is not before us, it may at once be said that the fact of his acquittal has been urged before us as one of the grounds for not placing complete reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It appears that the case against Kalachand failed by reason of certain defects in the evidence of identification. No question of identification, however, arises regarding Motilal Mallick and the defects referred to above are therefore no ground for regarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with suspicion so far as the present case is concerned. Having said this I do not propose to refer further to the case of the other accused Kalachand Shala.

2. The allegations on which the charges are based are briefly as follows: The principal persons concerned in the occurrence which gave rise to this case are, with the exception of witness Guljar Shah, residents of a village called Baburail which appears to be either a part, or at any rate on the outskirts of the town of Narayanganj in the district of Dacca. Witness Guljar Shah is a resident of another portion of Narayangunj or its outskirts known as Paikpara but he was well known to the people of Baburail by reason of his close connection with the local mosque. The accused Motilal is a resident of a village called Deobhog, which adjoins Baburail to the west. His house is on a continuation of Baburail Road (which runs from east to west through Baburail) and is only a few hundred yards from the residences of the principal persons concerned in this case. On the night of 9th April 1934, three men of Baburail, namely, Alfajuddin, Ramjan and Sadey Akkas, together with Guljar Shah of Paikpara, decided to sit up at night for the purpose of detecting an intrigue that was said to be going on between the daughter of one Abdul Gani and her brother-in-law Samad. These four men took their seat in the verandah of the house of one Kameruddin Sardar, which is situated just to the north of Baburail Road. Seeing a man enter Abdul Gani's bari which is almost immediately to the west of Kamaruddin's bari, they sent Saday Akkas to Gani's bari in order to keep a closer watch over it, and meanwhile Ramjan was sent to call another neighbour, Muzaffarali by name. Muzaffar came to Kamaruddin's house on being called by Ramjan, and he together with Guljar Shah, Alfajuddin and Ramjan remained seated together on Kamaruddin's verandah. Shortly after 2 a.m. they saw three men dressed in dhotis and shirts, and having no shoes on their feet, going along Baburail Road, from west to east. Their suspicions being aroused, they accosted these three men, and went a short distance along the road with them as far as the house of one Ali. There they all stopped and presently Muzaffar and his companions attempted to seize the men and to search their persons.

3. Two of the men thereupon pulled out revolvers and fired at the two men who had caught hold of them, namely, Ramjan and Muzaffar, while the third man (the present accused) tried to draw a dagger that he had in his waist belt. Muzaffar and Ramjan, on being shot, released their hold and the two men who had shot them then made off towards the east, pursued by Ramjan, while Muzaffar remained on the road at the place wher

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top