IMPORTANT POINT
Court may act on credible testimony of a single witness.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against conviction – Court may act on testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that testimony of single witness is found reliable – There is no impediment for recording conviction based on testimony of a single witness provided it is reliable – To prove charges against accused prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and adduced documentary evidence – Prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence – There was prior concert and appellants have acted in furtherance of common intention – Facts and circumstances clearly establish meeting of minds and common intention of appellants in committing murder of deceased – Appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No ground for interference under Article 136 is made out. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16)
       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Common intention – Ingredients – Section 34 IPC embodies principle of joint liability in doing of a criminal act – Essence of that liability is existence of common intention – Common intention implies acting in concert and existence of a pre-arranged plan which is to be proved/inferred either from conduct of accused persons or from attendant circumstances--To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all – It must be proved that there was common intention on part of several persons to commit a particular crime and crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention – Common intention implies pre-arranged plan. (Para 14)
       (C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Common intention – Ingredients – Under Section 34 IPC, pre-concert in sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved – Essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is conscious mind of persons participating in criminal action to bring about a particular result – Question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon inference to be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances of each case – Totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at conclusion whether accused had common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted. (Para 14)
       (2012) 1 SCC 10 ; AIR 1957 SC 614 ; (2003) 11 SCC 367 ; (2007) 14 SCC 150 ; (2010) 12 SCC 91 – Relied.
       Facts of Case:
       Murder case. Appeals challenge common judgment passed by High Court of Calcutta dismissing Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants and thereby affirming conviction of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five thousand imposed on each of them.
       Findings of Court:
       Considering facts and circumstances of case in hand, it is evident that there was prior concert and that appellants have acted in furtherance of common intention. Facts and circumstances clearly establish meeting of minds and common intention of appellants in committing the murder of deceased and appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. No ground for interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India is made out.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgment :

R. Banumathi, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 24.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta dismissing Criminal Appeal No.544 of 2004 filed by the appellants and thereby affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five thousand imposed on each of them.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2002 at about 08.30 p.m., complainant-PW1-Gora Das was having tea alongwith some of his friends at the shop of one Bablu Pal-PW5 at Shakherbazar. Sandipan Majumdar-PW6 sitting on his motorcycle was also having tea in front of tea stall of PW-5. At that time, the appellants came in a body to the place of occurrence. At first, appellant-Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu (A-3) abused the deceased-Saikat Saha and asked him as to why he did not meet Jishu da in the court as he was asked to do so at several occasions. Appellant-Apu Chatterjee @ Soumitra (A-6) said that if the men of Khoka were not killed then there would be no peace. On such exhortation, appellants-Tapas Das @ Bhambal (A-2) and Sankar Das @ Bhai (A-4) caught hold of Saikat Saha-deceased and appellants Goutam Ghosh (A-1) and Sk. Kochi @ Sk. Mobarak (A-5) fired at him and Saikat Saha sustained two gunshot injuries in the right chest. Gora Das-PW1 and Sandipan Majumdar-PW6 had immediately taken injured Saikat Saha to Calcutta Medical Research Institute. Dr. Debasish Pal-PW9 examined Saikat Saha and declared that he was brought dead and issued Injury Report (Ex.4) and Death Certificate (Ex-P4/1).

4. Gora Das-PW1 lodged the complaint on 14.01.2002 at 1.45 a.m. before Thakurpukur Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered in Case No.12 of 2002 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. A. K. Ghosh- Investigating Officer-PW13 had taken up the investigation and visited the spot and examined the available witnesses including PW6-Sandipan Majumdar who informed the police that he had witnessed the event and PW-6 also named the accused. On his statement, the appellants and accused Sk. Kochi @ Sk. Mobarak and one Jishu Jain were arrested. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants and other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

5. To prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and adduced documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of evidence and observing that PW-6 is a trustworthy witness, Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore convicted the appellants and Sk. Kochi under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of rupees five thousand on each of them. The trial court acquitted the co-accused Jishu Jain of all the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, the appellants filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.09.2012 dismissed the appeal thereby affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the appellants-Goutam Ghosh (A-1), Tapas Das @ Bhambal (A-2), Sudip Kr. Sen @ Biltu (A-3), Sankar Das @ Bhai (A4) and Apu Chatterjee @ Soumitra (A-6) are before us. Accused Sk. Kochi @ Sk. Mobarak (A-5) has not challenged the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the courts below failed to take into account the serious flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses which according to the appellants, practically demolished the version of the prosecution as propounded by the testimony of PW-6. It was submitted that in the cross-examination, PW-1 categorically stated that at the time of occurrence he and his friends ran to the spot which is at a distance of few yards from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document