Supreme Court acquits three in murder case, upholds conviction of one: Bikash Bora & Ors. vs. State of Assam (5 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 5 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 66

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can mere presence at the scene of a crime lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the death of a tea estate worker. The Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict all the accused for murder, or if the evidence pointed to the culpability of only one person. A two-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and K.M. Joseph delivered the judgment, with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Jugeswar Kurmi, who was found dead in front of a tea garden factory. Initially, six individuals were accused of his murder. The Trial Court acquitted two of the accused due to a lack of tangible evidence. However, the other four accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder with common intention. The Gauhati High Court upheld this conviction, although it disagreed with the Trial Court’s assessment of one witness as an eyewitness. The case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, No.2 (Ad-hoc) at Sivasagar initially convicted four of the six accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the four convicts, affirming the trial court’s decision, but clarified that PW-5 was not an eyewitness. The case reached the Supreme Court as a criminal appeal against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the circumstances, including the presence of all the accused at the scene, the recovery of a lathi from one of the accused’s house, and the injuries sustained by the deceased, pointed to the guilt of all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The defense contended that there was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds or a common intention to commit the murder. They argued that the mere presence of the accused at the scene was not sufficient to establish their guilt for murder.

The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:

• Jugeswar Kurmi visited Lakhiram Kurmi’s house and left at 8:30 PM.
• Lakhiram Kurmi heard dogs barking after Jugeswar Kurmi left.
• Lakhiram Kurmi heard sounds of a chase and beating.
• Chowkidars asked Lakhiram Kurmi for water for the injured Jugeswar Kurmi.
• Lakhiram Kurmi identified Jugeswar Kurmi in the torchlight of the accused.
• The accused carried Jugeswar Kurmi to the tea factory on a bicycle.
• Jugeswar Kurmi was found dead in front of the tea factory.
• A lathi was recovered from the house of accused Dipankar Bora.

The defense argued that:

• There was no evidence of common intention.
• The witness, Lakhiram Kurmi, did not see the assault.
• There was no evidence that all the accused were wielding lathis.
• The circumstances were not sufficient to establish the guilt of all the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the circumstances noted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were sufficient to conclude that all the appellants were guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be converted to Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for murder. The Court analyzed Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that there was no evidence of common intention for all the accused except Dipankar Bora. The court also considered Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but concluded that the offence was murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct evidence linking three of the accused to the actual assault. The court emphasized that mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which requires proof of a common intention. The recovery of the lathi from Dipankar Bora’s house, coupled with the nature of the injuries, was the main reason for his conviction. The court also noted that the deceased was unarmed and could not have resisted the chowkidars, which led to the conclusion that the assault was intentional and amounted to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument to convert the offence to Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but rejected it, stating, “Concededly, though the accused perceived Jugeswar Kurmi as a thief and had chased him but that could be no justification to inflict vigorous stick blows which could cause fatal injuries as noticed in the postmortem report and proved by PW­8.” The Court further added, “Therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the conclusion reached by the High Court that it was a case of causing murder of Jugeswar Kurmi (deceased), albeit by accused Dipankar Bora, an offence liable to be punished under Section 302 of I.P.C. simpliciter.” The Court also stated, “The proved chain of circumstances is not enough to establish their complicity in causing the two fatal injuries to the deceased (Jugeswar Kurmi) to which he eventually succumbed.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt for murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Common intention must be proven to convict multiple individuals under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Recovery of a murder weapon from an accused’s house can be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence.
• The nature of injuries and the circumstances of the assault are crucial in determining whether an act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bond of Dipankar Bora be cancelled and that he surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence. If he fails to surrender, the concerned police station is directed to take action as per the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court clarified that common intention must be proven to convict multiple individuals for a crime. This judgment reinforces the principle that each accused must be linked to the crime through concrete evidence, and the benefit of doubt should be given to those not directly implicated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting Bikash Bora, Atul Bora, and Haren Rautia, while upholding the conviction of Dipankar Bora under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must clearly establish the guilt of each accused, and mere presence at the scene is not sufficient for conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Common Intention
• Criminal Law

FAQ

Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

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

A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It 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: What does circumstantial evidence mean?

A: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it. In this case, the presence of the accused at the scene and the recovery of the lathi were considered circumstantial evidence.

Q: Can someone be convicted of murder just for being present at the scene of the crime?

A: No, mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to convict someone of murder. The prosecution must prove that the person had a common intention to commit the crime or was directly involved in the act.

Q: What was the outcome of this case?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted three of the accused (Bikash Bora, Atul Bora, and Haren Rautia) due to lack of evidence of common intention and direct involvement. The court upheld the conviction of Dipankar Bora, from whose house the murder weapon was recovered.