Supreme Court Convicts All Accused in Murder Case: Sanjay Puran Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra (28 July 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 718
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can individuals be held equally liable for a murder even if they didn’t directly inflict the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where two individuals held the victim while two others assaulted him with an axe. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning common intention in criminal acts. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, convicting all four accused for murder. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

On the night of November 2nd and 3rd, 2015, at around 3:00 AM, Vilas Babusa Gawande and his wife, Sau. Anita Vilas Gawande (PW-6), were awakened. While his wife prepared for cooking, Vilas went outside. PW-6 then heard her husband shouting that four people were attacking him. She rushed to the scene and saw Manoj Puran Badge and Puran Sakharam Bagde assaulting her husband with an axe, while Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna @ Nandu Bagde held him. Upon her loud cries, all the assailants fled. She found her husband bleeding, who told her that the four men had attacked him with an axe. She gave him water, and then went to the neighbors. They carried Vilas into the house and then to a hospital, where he was declared dead. The motive for the attack was allegedly that the deceased had cast an evil eye on Manoj Puran Bagde’s wife.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Manoj Puran Badge and Puran Sakharam Bagde, who were found to have assaulted the deceased with an axe. However, it acquitted Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna @ Nandu Bagde, stating that their role was limited to holding the victim, and they did not share a common intention to cause death. The High Court overturned the acquittal, holding that the presence of all four accused at the scene with weapons, along with prior disputes, established a shared common intention. The High Court found that all four accused were liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Special Leave Petition of the two accused who used the axe was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20.01.2020, while notice was issued to the appellants.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of 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.”

This section establishes the principle of constructive liability, meaning that if multiple individuals share a common intention to commit a crime, each is responsible for the criminal act as if they had committed it alone. The key element is the presence of a shared intention and participation in the criminal act.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna @ Nandu Bagde):

• The appellants argued that their role was limited to holding the deceased, and they did not inflict any injuries.
• They contended that there was no evidence to prove they shared a common intention with the other two accused to cause the death of the deceased.
• They relied on the Trial Court’s judgment, which had acquitted them on the ground that their actions did not demonstrate a shared intention to cause death.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Maharashtra):

• The State argued that the presence of all four accused at the scene, armed with weapons, at 3:00 AM, clearly indicated a common intention to cause harm to the deceased.
• The State emphasized that the appellants’ act of holding the deceased while the other two assaulted him with an axe was a crucial part of the criminal act.
• The State contended that the High Court correctly overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal, as there was a clear shared common intention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether, by reason of the appellants only holding the deceased while the other two attacked the deceased, can it be said that there was no shared common intention between all the accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

• Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu v. State of Punjab – (2022) 2 SCC 545, Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the scope of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that it creates a deeming fiction by importing a criminal act committed by one into others, provided there is a common intention.
• Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh – (2010) 8 SCC 407, Supreme Court of India. This case highlighted that the dominant feature of Section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action. Participation need not be physical presence but a common intention, which can be formed at any time.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu v. State of Punjab – (2022) 2 SCC 545* to emphasize that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, creates a deeming fiction by importing a criminal act committed by one into others, provided there is a common intention.
• The Supreme Court also relied on Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh – (2010) 8 SCC 407* to highlight that the dominant feature of Section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action, which need not be physical presence but a common intention.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The presence of all four accused at the scene of the crime at 3:30 AM, with two of them carrying axes, indicated a pre-meditated plan and a common intention to harm the deceased.
• The appellants’ act of holding the deceased while the other two attacked him was a crucial part of the criminal act, demonstrating their active participation in the crime.
• The Court emphasized that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not require each person to commit the same act, but rather that they share a common intention and participate in the criminal act.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the appellants’ limited role of holding the deceased meant they did not share a common intention. The Court reasoned that the appellants’ actions were an integral part of the criminal act and that the presence of all four accused at the scene with weapons at 3:30 AM clearly indicated a pre-meditated common intention.

The Supreme Court stated that,
“the very presence at 3.30 in the morning of all the accused at the house of the appellant with two of them holding an axe clearly shows that there can be no doubt about a common intention in behalf of what they were proposing to do.”

The Court further observed that,
“It was not an axe picked up at the site. Two of the accused were carrying the axes. It is not a sudden incident which has occurred. The pre-meditated intention was thus, clear.”

The Supreme Court also noted that,
“Even at the site, the intentions had never changed as the appellants were holding the deceased while the other two attacked. The fact that only two of them were using the axe while the other were two holding the deceased to ensure appropriate injuries being inflicted on the deceased would give no remission to the case of the appellants.”

The Supreme Court did not have a dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Individuals can be held liable for a crime under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, even if they did not directly commit the act, provided they shared a common intention and participated in the criminal act.
• The presence of multiple individuals at the scene of a crime, armed with weapons, can be strong evidence of a common intention to commit the crime.
• The role of each participant in a criminal act need not be identical, as long as there is a shared intention and participation in the act.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the presence of multiple individuals at the scene of a crime, armed with weapons, can be strong evidence of a common intention to commit the crime, even if the individuals did not directly commit the act, provided they shared a common intention and participated in the criminal act. This judgment reinforces the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarifies that the participation need not be identical for all accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna @ Nandu Bagde for murder. The Court emphasized that the presence of all accused at the scene with weapons at 3:30 AM, along with their coordinated actions, clearly indicated a shared common intention to harm the deceased. This judgment reinforces the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarifies that the participation need not be identical for all accused as long as there is a shared intention and participation in the act.