Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 34 IPC in a case of Culpable Homicide: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 17

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a person be held liable for a crime they did not directly commit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while examining the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. This case, involving a tragic incident of culpable homicide, explores the boundaries of vicarious liability in criminal law. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on April 21, 2011, at approximately 12:45 a.m. near Baba Rasoi Dhaba in Jalandhar. The deceased was allegedly targeted because he was suspected of having orchestrated a raid on a hotel owned by him and his father (PW6). The accused, who were friends, were involved in the incident.

On the night of the incident, PW6, the father of the deceased, went looking for his son as he had not returned home. He found the accused grappling with his son in the street light. PW10, a friend of the deceased, also witnessed the incident. PW13 claimed that he had overheard the accused planning to harm the deceased the previous night.

According to the prosecution, A3 and A4 allegedly said, “What are you seeing now,” after which A1 shot the deceased. A2 had already brandished his gun before this statement was made. The deceased was taken to a hospital about 3 km away, and PW6 filed a complaint. Initially, PW6 did not mention A3 and A4 instigating A1 to shoot, but he later added this detail in his additional statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all four accused. Ramsimran Singh Makkar was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Amardeep Singh Sachdeva, Jasdeep Singh, and Amarpreet Singh Narula were convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the IPC. All were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The trial court concluded that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion, thus falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court disbelieved the testimony of PW13 regarding prior planning. Appeals were filed by all parties. The High Court concurred with the trial court’s findings but did not specifically address the application of Section 34 IPC to A3 and A4.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section deals with the concept of joint criminal liability, where multiple individuals are involved in a criminal act. The original Section 34 of the 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.”

However, the current version of Section 34 of the IPC includes the phrase “in furtherance of the common intention of all”:

“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 addition, inspired by the judgment in *Queen v. Gorachand Gope*, (1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16), emphasizes the need for a shared intention among the participants. Section 33 of the IPC clarifies that a series of acts can be considered a single act, which is relevant for understanding the application of Section 34.

Arguments

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

• The counsel for A3 and A4 argued that the courts erred in applying Section 34 of the IPC because the evidence of PW13, who spoke about a prior conspiracy, was disbelieved.
• They highlighted the improvements made by PW6 in his statements, particularly regarding A3 and A4 instigating A1 to shoot.
• It was argued that if A2 brandished his gun first, A3 and A4 would have logically asked A2 to shoot rather than A1.
• The counsel pointed out that key witnesses, PW10 and PW23, turned hostile, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Submission of the Respondents (De facto complainant):

• The de facto complainant argued that the accused were influential and that the case should fall under Section 302 of the IPC, not Section 304 Part I.
• It was contended that physical action by each accused is not necessary to attract Section 34, and mere presence suffices.

Submission of the State:

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

The innovativeness in the argument by the appellants was that they highlighted the improbabilities in the prosecution’s case and the improvements made by the witnesses to argue against the application of Section 34 IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether Section 34 of the IPC was correctly applied to A3 and A4.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on a number of authorities to clarify the interpretation of Section 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized that the common intention must be proven and that mere presence or a statement is not sufficient to attract Section 34.

• The court cited Queen v. Gorachand Gope, (1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16) to emphasize the need for “common intention” in Section 34 IPC.
• The court referred to Suresh v State of U.P. ((2001) 3 SCC 673) to explain that an act with nexus to the offense is needed for liability under Section 34.
• The court also relied on Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar, [(2003) 1 SCC 268] to state that sharing a common intention and presence at the scene are required.
• The court cited Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P., [(2020) 4 SCC 126] to explain that Section 34 is attracted when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• The court referred to Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1) to explain that a criminal act includes a series of acts and omissions.
• The court also relied on Mehbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 148) to state that Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability and the essence of liability is in the existence of a common intention.
• The court cited Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 605] to state that it is not necessary to prove that each person indulged in overt acts, but there must be material to show that the act was done in furtherance of common intention.
• The court referred to Krishnan & Another v. State of Kerala [(1996) 10 SCC 508] to hold that establishing an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow Section 34 to operate when common intention is proved.
• The court also relied on Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. [(2000) 4 SCC 110] to state that under Section 34, a person must be physically present at the commission of the crime to facilitate or promote the offense.
• The court cited Gopi Nath @ Jhallar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] to explain that Section 34 lays down the rule of joint responsibility for criminal acts done in furtherance of a common intention.
• The court referred to Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 305] to state that Section 34 lays down the principle of joint liability and if the act is the result of a common intention, every person is responsible.
• The court also relied on Nand Kishore V . State Of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 12 SCC 120] to explain the three ingredients of Section 34 and that individual participation is required for conviction under Section 34.
• The court cited Shyamal Ghosh V . State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646] to state that Section 34 applies when two or more accused are present and common intention and participation are established.
• The court referred to Virendra Singh V . State of Madhya Pradesh ((2010) 8 SCC 407) to explain that common intention implies a prearranged plan and acting in concert, and it can develop on the spot.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Premeditation: The court emphasized that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and not a premeditated plan. This was crucial in determining that the offense fell under Section 304 Part I of the IPC rather than Section 302.
• Doubtful Testimony: The court highlighted the inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly PW6 and PW13. The court disbelieved the evidence of PW13 and found PW6’s testimony to be exaggerated.
• Insufficient Evidence for Section 34: The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1. The mere statement made by A3 and A4 was not enough to attract Section 34.
• Focus on Individual Liability: The court underscored the principle that individuals should be held liable for their own actions, and vicarious liability under Section 34 requires a clear demonstration of common intention and participation.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates a strong emphasis on the lack of premeditation and the insufficient evidence to establish common intention among all the accused.

The ratio of Fact:Law in this case is 60:40, indicating that the court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of premeditation and the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt against A3 and A4. The final decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence and applying the legal principles of Section 34 of the IPC.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The evidence of PW13 regarding prior planning was disbelieved.
• PW6’s testimony was found to be exaggerated and inconsistent.
• The statement made by A3 and A4 was not sufficient to prove a common intention to commit the crime.
• There was no evidence to suggest that A3 and A4 knew that A1 was carrying a gun.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The reasoning of the trial court in disbelieving the evidence of PW6 as he improved on his case subsequently, ought to be applied for the statement made that A3 and A4 had asked A1 to fire.”

“There is no evidence at all on record to hold that A3 and A4 were aware of the fact that A1 was having a gun with him.”

“Suffice it is to hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against A3 and A4 by reflecting the offence committed by A1, taking umbrage under Section 34 IPC.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Vicarious Liability Requires Proof of Common Intention: Section 34 of the IPC cannot be applied without clear evidence of a shared intention to commit the crime. Mere presence or a statement is not enough.
• Importance of Witness Credibility: The credibility of witnesses is crucial, and inconsistencies or exaggerations in testimony can significantly impact the outcome of a case.
• Individual Liability: The principle of individual liability is paramount, and individuals cannot be held liable for the actions of others without clear proof of their participation and common intention.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when implicating individuals under Section 34 of the IPC.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence and a clear demonstration of common intention. It also highlights the importance of witness credibility and the principle of individual liability.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court confirming that of the trial court against the Accused-Appellants namely A3 and A4. The appeals of A3 and A4 were allowed, and the appeal of the de facto complainant was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 34 of the IPC requires a clear demonstration of common intention and participation in the criminal act. The court emphasized that mere presence or a statement is not sufficient to attract Section 34. This judgment reinforces the principle that vicarious liability requires a high degree of proof and that individuals should be held responsible for their own actions unless a shared criminal intention is clearly established.

This judgment clarifies the application of Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for a clear demonstration of common intention and participation in a criminal act. It reinforces the principle that vicarious liability requires a high degree of proof and that individuals should be held responsible for their own actions unless a shared criminal intention is clearly established.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab* clarifies the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that vicarious liability under Section 34 requires a clear demonstration of common intention and participation in the criminal act. The court set aside the conviction of A3 and A4, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their involvement with sufficient evidence. This judgment reinforces the importance of individual liability and the need for a thorough examination of evidence in cases involving joint criminal liability.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Culpable Homicide
  • Joint Liability
  • Criminal Law