Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Common Intention: Virender vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: December 16, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1234
Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice K.M. Joseph

Can an individual be held liable for murder if they were present at the scene but did not inflict the fatal injuries and the prosecution fails to prove a common intention? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Virender vs. State of Haryana*. The court examined whether the appellant, who was present during a fatal assault, could be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on the night of November 6-7, 1999. Suresh Kumar and his brother, Krishan Kumar (the deceased), were irrigating their field. Around 1:30-2:00 AM on November 7, 1999, Krishan Kumar went to check the water flow near the field of Hawa Singh (Accused No. 3). Suresh Kumar, the first informant, heard noises and found Hawa Singh armed with an axe (kulhari), Satpal (Accused No. 1) with a sickle (dantali), and Virender (the appellant/Accused No. 2) with a lathi.

Hawa Singh allegedly shouted that Krishan Kumar should be taught a lesson. Hawa Singh then struck Krishan Kumar on the right shoulder with the axe, Satpal hit him on the left arm with the sickle, and Virender struck him on the left knee with the lathi. When Krishan Kumar fell, Hawa Singh struck him on the chest with the axe, and Satpal hit him on the left knee with the sickle. The first informant, Suresh Kumar, raised an alarm, and their uncle, Jugal Kishore, arrived at the scene. The accused then fled. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the morning of November 7, 1999.

The Sessions Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld this conviction. Hawa Singh and Satpal did not appeal and completed their sentences. Virender, however, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of two key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It 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.”

The court’s analysis centers on whether the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder, a necessary element to invoke Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his active involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The appellant contended that the injuries attributed to him were minor (a laceration and an abrasion) and could have been caused by the deceased falling to the ground.
• The appellant emphasized that he had no motive to commit the murder, unlike the other accused, Hawa Singh, who had a dispute over land.
• The appellant highlighted that there was no evidence to suggest he was a friend, relative, or hireling of the other accused.
• The appellant pointed out that the eye-witnesses’ statements regarding his assault on the deceased were “improvements” made during cross-examination and were not part of their initial statements.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the appellant was present at the scene of the crime and participated in the assault by hitting the deceased with a lathi.
• The State contended that the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder, and therefore, he was liable under Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The State relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, PW-14 and PW-15, who stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the appellant could be convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the absence of proof of common intention and active participation in the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174, Supreme Court of India: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that common intention denotes action in concert and a prior meeting of minds. The acts may be different, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. The court clarified that prior concert does not necessarily mean a distinct previous plan, as the common intention can develop on the spot.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174, emphasizing that common intention requires action in concert and a prior meeting of minds, which was not proven in this case.
• The Court considered Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, in determining the punishment for murder but found it inapplicable to the appellant due to lack of common intention.
• The Court considered Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarified that it requires proof of a common intention, which was not established against the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to prove the appellant’s common intention to commit the murder. The Court emphasized that mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The following points weighed heavily on the Court’s mind:

• Lack of Motive: The appellant had no apparent motive to participate in the murder. Unlike the other accused, he had no prior dispute or rivalry with the deceased.
• Nature of Injuries: The injuries attributed to the appellant were minor and could have been caused by a fall, not necessarily by an active assault.
• Inconsistency in Testimony: The eye-witnesses’ statements regarding the appellant’s assault were inconsistent and appeared to be “improvements” made during cross-examination.
• Absence of Common Intention: The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that:

• The appellant’s presence at the scene was not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder.
• The injuries attributed to the appellant were minor and could have been caused by the deceased falling.
• The eye-witnesses’ statements regarding the appellant’s assault were inconsistent and appeared to be “improvements” made during cross-examination.

The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court against the appellant. The appellant was acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The Court also discharged the bail bonds executed by the appellant.

The Court observed, “We are of the opinion that both the Courts have concluded against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court also noted, “In order to invoke the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act as laid down in Section 34, the prosecution should show that the criminal act in question was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.”

Further, the Court stated, “The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Proving Common Intention: The judgment underscores the importance of proving a common intention to commit a crime to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Assumptions and conjectures are not sufficient for conviction.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony. “Improvements” made during cross-examination can undermine the credibility of the witnesses.
• Motive: While not always necessary, the presence of a motive can strengthen the prosecution’s case. The absence of motive can be a factor in favor of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the appellant was already on bail, he need not be arrested in connection with the crime. The bail bonds executed by him were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that to convict an accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. Mere presence at the scene of the crime or minor injuries inflicted by the accused are not sufficient for conviction. This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that assumptions and conjectures cannot substitute for reliable evidence.

Conclusion

In *Virender vs. State of Haryana*, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Virender, of murder charges, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove a common intention to commit the crime. The Court highlighted that mere presence at the scene and minor injuries inflicted by the accused are not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment underscores the importance of proving common intention beyond a reasonable doubt and reinforces the principle that the prosecution must present reliable evidence to secure a conviction.