Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court clarifies common intention in Jasdeep Singh vs State of Punjab (2022) INSC 14

Date of the Judgment: 7 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 14
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can mere presence at a crime scene and uttering a statement be enough to establish “common intention” under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while examining the conviction of two individuals accused of murder. The court analyzed the nuances of “common intention” and its application in cases of shared criminal liability. This judgment clarifies the extent to which individuals can be held responsible for the actions of others in a criminal act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice M.M. Sundresh authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a fatal shooting incident that occurred around 12:45 a.m. on April 21, 2011, near Baba Rasoi Dhaba in Jalandhar. The deceased had a conflict with the accused, as he believed that a raid on his hotel was instigated by them. The four accused were friends. On the night of the incident, the deceased was found grappling with the accused. One of the accused, A1, shot the deceased with a gun. The father of the deceased (PW6) witnessed the incident and filed a complaint.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The trial court reasoned that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The High Court did not specifically address the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to accused A3 and A4. A3 and A4 appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn their convictions. The de facto complainant also appealed, seeking a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 304 Part I.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The court noted the historical evolution of this section, highlighting the addition of the phrase “in furtherance of the common intention.” The original Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stated:
  
  “When a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone.”
  
  The current Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
  
  “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 by him alone”
• Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the word “act” to include a series of acts and omissions. The court noted that this provision clarifies that a series of acts or omissions can be considered a single act or omission.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines murder. Exception 4 of this section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for murder.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (A3 and A4):

• The appellants argued that the trial court erred in applying Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because the evidence of PW13, who spoke about a prior conspiracy, was disbelieved.
• They contended that there was an improvement in the statement made by PW6, who initially did not state that A3 and A4 exhorted A1 to shoot.
• The appellants argued that merely making a statement is insufficient to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• They questioned the presence of PW6, stating that the deceased was in the habit of coming late, and thus, there was no reason for PW6 to search for him.
• The appellants argued that if A2 brandished the gun first, it would be logical for A3 and A4 to ask A2 to shoot, not A1.
• They also pointed out that key witnesses, PW10 and PW23, turned hostile.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (de facto complainant):

• The respondent argued that the accused were influential persons and the case should fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• They contended that physical action by the accused is not necessary to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and mere presence is sufficient.
• The respondent argued that the trial court erred in applying Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 302.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The State argued that the High Court provided cogent reasoning and the trial court considered all available material.
• They stated that the recoveries made were proven, and there is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court and the trial court were correct in convicting the accused under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or whether the case should fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was correctly applied to accused A3 and A4.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Queen v. Gorachand Gope, (1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16) to understand the evolution of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court relied on Suresh v State of U.P. ((2001) 3 SCC 673) to emphasize the need for an act in furtherance of common intention.
• The Court cited Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar, [(2003) 1 SCC 268] to explain that mere distancing from the scene does not absolve an accused.
• The Court used Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P., [(2020) 4 SCC 126] to highlight the requirement of a criminal act done in furtherance of common intention.
• The Court referred to Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1) to clarify that a criminal act includes a series of acts and omissions.
• The Court cited Mehbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 148) to explain that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan.
• The Court relied on Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 605] to note that overt acts are not always necessary for conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court cited Krishnan & Another v. State of Kerala [(1996) 10 SCC 508] to explain that an overt act is not always required to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court used Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. [(2000) 4 SCC 110] to emphasize that physical presence is necessary under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court cited Gopi Nath @ Jhallar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] to explain that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down the rule of joint responsibility for criminal acts.
• The Court used Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 305] to explain the principle of joint liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court cited Nand Kishore V . State Of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 12 SCC 120] to explain the ingredients of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court cited Shyamal Ghosh V . State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646] to explain that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) requires common intention and participation.
• The Court used Virendra Singh V . State of Madhya Pradesh ((2010) 8 SCC 407) to explain the vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the need for a prearranged plan.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a “common intention” between A3, A4, and A1. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of PW13, which was deemed unreliable by the lower courts. The Court also highlighted the improvements made by PW6 in his statements, which cast doubt on the veracity of his testimony. The Court emphasized that mere presence and uttering a statement are insufficient to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court was also influenced by the fact that A2 had brandished his gun first, and it would have been logical for A3 and A4 to ask A2 to shoot, not A1. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1 to commit the crime.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the statement made by A3 and A4 could have been an instigation for the crime. However, the Court rejected this interpretation due to the lack of evidence and the fact that A2 was the one who brandished the gun first. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1. The Court reasoned that the statement made by A3 and A4, “what are you seeing now,” was not sufficient to establish a common intention to commit the crime. The Court also noted that the statement could have been made to attack the deceased for other reasons.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court quoted:

• “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 by him alone”
• “It does not follow that, because they were present with the intention of taking him away, that they assisted by their presence in the beating of him to such an extent as to cause death.”
• “The essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention”

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: Establishing “common intention” under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) requires more than mere presence or uttering a statement at the scene of a crime.
• Evidence: The prosecution must provide concrete and clear evidence to prove “common intention.” Mere improvements in statements by witnesses can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
• Vicarious Liability: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) creates vicarious liability, but it must be proven that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention.
• Benefit of Doubt: The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to apply, there must be sufficient evidence to prove a common intention between the accused, and mere presence or a statement is not sufficient to establish this. This judgment reinforces the principle that vicarious liability under Section 34 requires a clear demonstration of a shared plan or understanding to commit the crime. This case also clarifies that the prosecution must prove the common intention beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of accused A3 and A4, setting aside their conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1 to commit the crime. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation. The appeal of the de facto complainant seeking a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed. This judgment emphasizes the importance of proving common intention beyond a reasonable doubt for vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).