Supreme Court acquits appellants in murder case due to lack of common intention: Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 123

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can mere presence at the scene of a crime and holding the victim constitute common intention to commit murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, acquitting two appellants who were convicted of murder by lower courts. The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The Supreme Court bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi delivered the judgment, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute between Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain (accused no. 1) and Mohammad Shakil (the deceased) over a flat. On August 18, 1997, at approximately 11:00 a.m., Mohammad Shakil was operating an electric motor to supply water to an overhead tank. However, water taps in Iftekharhussain’s house were open, preventing water from reaching the tank. When Mohammad Shakil asked Iftekharhussain to close the taps, a heated argument ensued. Members of Mohammad Shakil’s family, including Shamimbanu, Adilahmed, and Zaidahmed, intervened and started abusing Iftekharhussain’s family.

Following this, Iftekharhussain and his brother, Shefakathussain (accused no. 2), went inside their house and returned with a knife and a gupti (a type of dagger). According to the prosecution, the present appellants (accused nos. 3 and 4) caught hold of Mohammad Shakil, while Iftekharhussain and Shefakathussain stabbed him. Adilahmed (PW-2) was also injured in the attack. Both Mohammad Shakil and Adilahmed were taken to the hospital, where Mohammad Shakil succumbed to his injuries. Shamimbanu (PW-1), the wife of the deceased, filed a complaint at 2:00 p.m., leading to the registration of a case against all four accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Notably, Iftekharhussain also filed a cross-complaint at 12:10 p.m. regarding the same incident, stating that he was attacked by Mohammad Shakil and others after a dispute over water supply. In his complaint, Iftekharhussain did not mention the presence of the present appellants (accused nos. 3 and 4) at the scene of the crime.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found all four accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the ocular evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4, who were all family members of the deceased. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. Accused nos. 1 and 2 did not challenge their conviction and sentence. However, accused nos. 3 and 4 (the present appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no evidence to prove their common intention to commit the crime.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is 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 establishes the principle of joint liability, where each person involved in a criminal act done with a common intention is held responsible for the act as if they had done it alone. The key element here is the “common intention,” which implies a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds. The Supreme Court has clarified that common intention is different from a similar intention and requires a prior concert or meeting of minds. It can be determined from the conduct of the offenders, circumstances, or any incriminating facts.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the lower courts erred in accepting the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4, who were all interested witnesses.
• They contended that even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, the evidence only implicated accused nos. 1 and 2, who were alleged to have stabbed the deceased.
• The appellants argued that the only allegation against them was that they caught hold of the deceased, which, without corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• They pointed out that the initial FIR filed by accused no. 1 did not mention their presence at the scene of the crime.
• The appellants claimed they were falsely implicated due to a long-standing civil dispute between the families.
• They argued that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, despite the incident occurring on a holiday when many people were likely present.
• The appellants submitted that their mere presence at the scene was not sufficient to prove a shared common intention.
• They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramashish Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar 1998(8) SCC 555, to argue that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should only be drawn if it is a necessary inference from the circumstances of the case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the presence of the appellants was established by the consistent testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
• They contended that the appellants caught hold of the deceased and later Adilahmed (PW-2), indicating a common intention to commit murder.
• The respondent argued that the appellants were aware of the lethal weapons brought by the other accused and that their actions facilitated the attack.
• They submitted that the appellants’ act of holding the deceased showed an intention to disable him, thus proving their common intention.
• The respondent relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh alias Photti Vs. State of A.P. 2004(11) SCC 305 and Goudappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka 2013(6) SCC 675, to argue that the appellants’ actions in facilitating the attack and not preventing it showed their common intention.

Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased Mohammad Shakil under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216: The court used this case to emphasize that common intention is a question of fact in every case and that the facts of one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another.
• Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174: The court referred to this case to explain the distinction between Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, highlighting that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds.
• Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor I.L.R. (1945) IndAp 148: The court cited this case to reiterate that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, and the inference of common intention should only be drawn if it is a necessary inference from the circumstances of the case.
• Ramashish Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar 1998(8) SCC 555: The court used this case to emphasize that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down a principle of joint liability, requiring a pre-arranged plan and prior concert.
• Ramesh Singh alias Photti Vs. State of A.P. 2004(11) SCC 305: The court distinguished this case from the present one, noting that in the present case there was no pre-arrangement of mind.
• Goudappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka 2013(6) SCC 675: The court distinguished this case as well, noting that there cannot be a universal rule in laying down the principles of existence of common intention.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to prove that the appellants shared a common intention with the other accused to commit murder. The court emphasized that mere presence at the scene and holding the victim is not sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also noted that the initial FIR filed by accused no. 1 did not mention the presence of the appellants, which created a doubt about their involvement. The court highlighted the absence of any independent witnesses and the possibility of false implication due to a long-standing civil dispute between the families. The court also emphasized that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds, which was not proven in this case.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the application of the legal principles related to common intention. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. The court found that the prosecution failed to do so in the case of the present appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the appellants’ act of holding the deceased showed an intention to disable him, but ultimately rejected this interpretation. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants shared a common intention to commit the murder. The court also emphasized that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. The court found that the prosecution failed to do so in the case of the present appellants.

The Supreme Court stated:

“Other than the allegation that the accused persons caught hold of deceased Mohammad Shakil, there is no other instigating action or overt act attributed to the present accused appellants actively participating in the commission of crime as alleged.”

“Certainly it creates a doubt of their false implication and their presence from the prosecution evidence on record appears to be clouded with suspicion and in our considered view, the present appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC.”

“The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges filed against them by giving them benefit of doubt.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench of two judges unanimously agreed to acquit the appellants.

Key Takeaways

• Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• To prove common intention, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds.
• The prosecution must provide corroborating evidence to support the testimony of interested witnesses.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The initial FIR is a crucial piece of evidence, and any discrepancies can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and acquitted the appellants. As the appellants were already on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of a crime and holding the victim is not sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment reinforces the principle that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds. This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. This judgment also highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the benefit of doubt in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat is a significant ruling that clarifies the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene of a crime and holding the victim is not sufficient to establish common intention. The judgment underscores the importance of a pre-arranged plan, a prior meeting of minds, and corroborating evidence in proving common intention. This case serves as a reminder that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Category

• Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Child Category: Common Intention
  • Child Category: Criminal Law
  • Child Category: Joint Liability

FAQ

Q: What is common intention under Indian law?

A: Common intention, as defined under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, refers to a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds between several persons to commit a criminal act. Each person involved with such common intention is liable for the act as if they had done it alone.

Q: What does Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, state?

A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that 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.

Q: Can mere presence at the scene of a crime establish common intention?

A: No, mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish common intention. There must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds.

Q: What is the significance of the initial FIR in a criminal case?

A: The initial FIR is a crucial piece of evidence. Any discrepancies or omissions in the FIR can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Q: What is the benefit of doubt in criminal cases?

A: The benefit of doubt means that if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.

Q: How does the Supreme Court’s judgment impact the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: The judgment reinforces the principle that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds, and that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish common intention.

Q: What should be done if you are falsely implicated in a criminal case?

A: If you are falsely implicated in a criminal case, it is important to seek legal counsel immediately. Your lawyer can help you understand your rights and develop a defense strategy.