LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal
[Judgment Date]: March 15, 2022
Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 253
Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J.
Can an individual be held liable for murder when they did not directly inflict the fatal blow, but were present at the scene? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the critical element of “common intention” under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court examined the facts of a case where the accused was charged with murder along with another individual, who was the one who actually stabbed the victim. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, delivered the judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Case Background
On August 2, 1976, a tragic incident occurred involving Purna Chandra Ghosh, an assistant teacher, and Khiroda Mohan Paul, the Head Master of a High School. As they were walking home from school around 5:30 PM, they encountered the appellant, Gadadhar Chandra, and a juvenile, Arjun Mondal, along with two others, Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu, near a railway gate. The appellant and Arjun confronted Purna Chandra Ghosh, accusing him of assaulting the appellant’s elder brother. An altercation ensued, during which the appellant brandished a knife and threatened Khiroda Mohan Paul when he tried to intervene. A scuffle broke out between Arjun and Purna Chandra Ghosh, during which Arjun stabbed Purna Chandra Ghosh with a knife, resulting in his death. Following the incident, both the appellant and Arjun fled the scene.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 2, 1976 | Incident occurred where Purna Chandra Ghosh was stabbed. |
| December 23, 2008 | Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant. |
| March 15, 2022 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Calcutta High Court upheld this conviction in its judgment dated December 23, 2008. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which 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 done by him alone.”
This section deals with the concept of joint criminal liability, where multiple individuals can be held responsible for a criminal act if they share a common intention to commit that act. The provision requires a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds among the individuals involved. The prosecution must prove that the accused had a prior understanding and agreement to commit the crime.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel argued that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not apply in this case.
- It was submitted that there was no prior concert or pre-arranged plan to kill the deceased.
- The only overt act alleged against the appellant was brandishing a knife and threatening PW1.
- The appellant’s counsel highlighted that the fatal blow was inflicted by Arjun, not the appellant.
- The knife allegedly used by the appellant was not recovered.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent’s counsel argued that there was prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased, establishing a motive.
- The statement of Arjun recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, corroborated the appellant’s role in brandishing a knife.
- The non-recovery of the appellant’s knife was not significant due to the cogent evidence against him.
- The respondent claimed there was a meeting of minds and prior concert between the appellant and Arjun.
- It was argued that the appellant actively assisted Arjun by holding the deceased’s shirt collar.
- The respondent contended that the appellant made no effort to prevent Arjun from committing the crime.
- The respondent relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajkishore Purohit v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2017) 9 SCC 483], Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 705] and Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1955 SC 216] to support their arguments.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | ✓ No prior concert or pre-arranged plan to kill the deceased. ✓ Only overt act was brandishing a knife and threatening PW1. ✓ Fatal blow was inflicted by Arjun. ✓ Knife used by the appellant was not recovered. |
✓ Prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased established motive. ✓ Statement of Arjun under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, corroborates appellant’s role. ✓ Non-recovery of knife is not significant. ✓ Meeting of minds and prior concert between appellant and Arjun. ✓ Appellant actively assisted Arjun by holding deceased’s shirt collar. ✓ Appellant did not prevent Arjun from committing the crime. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the ingredients of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the appellant, specifically, whether there was a common intention between the appellant and Arjun to commit the murder.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution proved common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | The Court found that there was no evidence of a prior agreement or plan between the appellant and Arjun to commit the murder. The prosecution also failed to examine crucial eyewitnesses who could have shed light on the existence of a prior concert and pre-arranged plan. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Respondent:
- Rajkishore Purohit v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2017) 9 SCC 483] – Supreme Court of India.
- Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 705] – Supreme Court of India.
- Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1955 SC 216] – Supreme Court of India.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Rajkishore Purohit v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2017) 9 SCC 483] | Supreme Court of India | The respondent relied on this case to argue the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 705] | Supreme Court of India | The respondent relied on this case to argue the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1955 SC 216] | Supreme Court of India | The respondent relied on this case to argue the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not attracted due to lack of prior concert and pre-arranged plan. | The Court agreed with this submission, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a prior concert or pre-arranged plan. |
| Appellant’s submission that the only overt act alleged against him was brandishing a knife and threatening PW1. | The Court acknowledged this submission, noting that the appellant did not inflict the fatal blow. |
| Respondent’s submission that there was prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased, establishing a motive. | The Court did not find this sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Respondent’s submission that the statement of Arjun recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, corroborated the appellant’s role. | The Court held that this statement could not be used against the appellant due to the separate trial of Arjun before the Juvenile Justice Board. |
| Respondent’s submission that there was a meeting of minds and prior concert between the appellant and Arjun. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a prior concert and pre-arranged plan. |
| Respondent’s submission that the appellant actively assisted Arjun by holding the deceased’s shirt collar. | The Court acknowledged this fact but did not consider it sufficient to establish common intention for murder. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court did not explicitly discuss the facts or ratios of the cases cited by the respondent to distinguish them from the present case. The Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the specific facts of the case, emphasizing the lack of evidence of a prior agreement or plan to commit the murder.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the existence of a prior agreement or plan between the appellant and Arjun to commit the murder. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which requires a “common intention” and a “meeting of minds” before an individual can be held vicariously liable for the criminal act of another.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of evidence of prior agreement | 40% |
| Failure to examine crucial eyewitnesses | 30% |
| Non-recovery of the appellant’s knife | 15% |
| Absence of proof of common intention | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Incident occurs: Appellant and Arjun confront deceased
Appellant brandishes knife, Arjun stabs the deceased
Prosecution argues common intention under Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Court examines evidence for prior agreement and plan
Court finds no prior agreement or plan
Court concludes Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, not applicable to appellant
Appellant acquitted
Judgment Analysis
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the absence of evidence proving a prior agreement or plan between the appellant and Arjun to commit the murder. The Court highlighted the following points:
- The prosecution failed to examine two crucial eyewitnesses, Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu, who were present with the appellant and Arjun before the incident and could have provided insights into any prior discussions or plans.
- The knife allegedly used by the appellant was not recovered, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.
- The Court emphasized that the exchange of blows was primarily between the deceased and Arjun, and the appellant’s role was limited to brandishing a knife and holding the deceased’s shirt collar.
- The Court reiterated the established principle that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires a prior meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan.
The Court noted that “common intention contemplated by Section 34 of IPC presupposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds. It requires a prearranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another.” The Court further stated that “the criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.” Additionally, the Court observed that “the nonexamination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and prearranged plan extremely doubtful.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka agreeing on the acquittal of the appellant. The judgment underscores the importance of proving a prior agreement or plan to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and highlights the significance of examining all material witnesses to ensure a fair trial.
Key Takeaways
- To establish liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove a prior agreement or plan between the accused to commit the crime.
- The mere presence of an individual at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The prosecution must examine all material witnesses who can provide relevant information about the incident.
- The non-recovery of a weapon allegedly used by an accused can weaken the prosecution’s case.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and Sessions Court and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to be applicable, there must be a prior meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan to commit the crime. The judgment reinforces the established interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the necessity of proving a prior agreement or plan to establish common intention, thereby not changing any previous position of law.
Conclusion
In the case of Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant, Gadadhar Chandra, of murder charges, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a prior agreement or plan between the appellant and the co-accused, Arjun, to commit the murder. The Court emphasized that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires a meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan, which was not established in this case. The judgment highlights the importance of examining all material witnesses and proving a prior agreement to establish vicarious liability in criminal cases.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Joint Criminal Liability
Child Category: Common Intention
Child Category: Murder
Parent Category: Evidence Law
Child Category: Witness Examination
Child Category: Adverse Inference
FAQ
Q: What is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with joint criminal liability, stating that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each person is liable for that act as if it were done by them alone.
Q: What does “common intention” mean under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: “Common intention” means that there was a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds among the individuals involved to commit the criminal act.
Q: Can someone be convicted under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if they did not directly commit the crime?
A: Yes, if they shared a common intention with the person who committed the crime and the act was done in furtherance of that common intention.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal?
A: The Supreme Court acquitted Gadadhar Chandra, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a prior agreement or plan between him and the co-accused to commit the murder.
Q: What is the significance of examining all material witnesses in a criminal case?
A: Examining all material witnesses is crucial to ensure a fair trial and to establish the truth about the incident. Failure to do so can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.