Supreme Court Convicts Gurbachan Singh for Murder Under Section 302 with Section 34, IPC in Land Dispute Case (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 07 December 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can a person be held liable for murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a land dispute that escalated into a deadly assault. The core issue was whether the accused, Gurbachan Singh, shared a common intention with the other assailants to cause the death of the victim, Teja Singh. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding Gurbachan Singh liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute between Teja Singh and his brother Harbhajan Singh on one side, and Gurbachan Singh and his brothers Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, and Manjeet Singh on the other side. On November 6, 2000, at around 5 PM, Gurbachan Singh and Balvir Singh were ploughing a plot of land belonging to the water works department. Teja Singh objected to this, leading to a village meeting. Gurbachan Singh and Balvir Singh left the meeting in anger. Later that evening, at approximately 7:30 PM, Harbhajan Singh and Jasveer Kaur were on their way to the village Gurudwara when they saw Teja Singh coming from a flour mill. Gurbachan Singh, along with Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, and Manjeet Singh, armed with weapons, attacked Teja Singh. Teja Singh died on the spot due to the injuries inflicted upon him, and Harbhajan Singh also sustained injuries during the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Gurbachan Singh along with Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, Darshan Singh, and Jangir Kaur under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 302 read with Section 149. Manjeet Kaur, who had absconded, was tried separately and also convicted, but her conviction was later overturned by the High Court. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur acquitted Jangir Kaur and partly allowed Gurbachan Singh’s appeal, modifying his conviction to Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court upheld the conviction of Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision regarding Gurbachan Singh.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with 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.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon. “Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. “Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. “Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the primary code defining criminal offenses and their punishments in India. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is particularly relevant as it addresses the concept of joint criminal liability, holding individuals accountable for acts done in furtherance of a common intention.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan:

• The State argued that Gurbachan Singh shared a common intention with the other accused to cause the death of Teja Singh.
• The State contended that Gurbachan Singh was present at the scene of the crime, armed with a lathi, and participated in the assault on Teja Singh.
• The State submitted that the High Court erred in concluding that Gurbachan Singh did not share a common intention because he only inflicted injuries on Teja Singh’s feet with a lathi.
• The State emphasized that the injuries inflicted by Gurbachan Singh, along with the other accused, resulted in the death of Teja Singh.
• The State relied on the fact that a blood-smeared lathi was recovered from Gurbachan Singh, indicating his active participation in the crime.

Arguments by Gurbachan Singh:

• Gurbachan Singh argued that he did not share a common intention to cause the death of Teja Singh.
• He contended that he was only armed with a lathi and had only inflicted injuries on Teja Singh’s feet.
• He argued that the other accused were armed with more dangerous weapons, and they inflicted the fatal injuries.
• He relied on the High Court’s finding that he did not share a common intention with the other accused.

The prosecution argued that the common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. The state further contended that the common intention can be inferred by the conduct of the accused. The defence argued that since the accused was only armed with a lathi and had only struck on the feet of the deceased, the common intention cannot be inferred.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to Gurbachan Singh under Section 302 read with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by convicting him only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in view of the finding that he did not share a common intention with Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh to cause the death of Teja Singh, as he only inflicted wounds on his feet with a ‘lathi’.

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 authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court applied this section to hold Gurbachan Singh liable for murder, emphasizing that he shared a common intention with the other accused.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court used this section to convict Gurbachan Singh for the murder of Teja Singh.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that this section cannot be applied as the requirement of unlawful assembly was not satisfied.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that this section cannot be applied as the requirement of unlawful assembly was not satisfied.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court did not rely on this section for the conviction for murder, but it was used by the High Court to convict Gurbachan Singh for causing hurt.
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court maintained the conviction of Gurbachan Singh under this section for the injuries inflicted on Harbhajan Singh.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Presence and Participation: Gurbachan Singh was present at the scene of the crime and actively participated in the assault on Teja Singh.
• Common Intention: The Court inferred a common intention from the conduct of Gurbachan Singh and the other accused, despite Gurbachan Singh only using a lathi.
• First to Attack: Gurbachan Singh was the first to attack Teja Singh, hitting him on the feet with a lathi, which contributed to the sequence of events leading to Teja Singh’s death.
• Recovery of Blood-Smeared Lathi: The recovery of a blood-smeared lathi from Gurbachan Singh further solidified his involvement in the crime.
• Cumulative Effect of Injuries: The Court considered the cumulative effect of the injuries inflicted by all the accused, which ultimately led to Teja Singh’s death.

The Court emphasized that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and inferred from the conduct of the accused. The Court also noted that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the facts and the law.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Joint Liability: Individuals can be held liable for murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow, provided they shared a common intention with the other assailants.
• Common Intention: Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.
• Participation in Crime: Active participation in a crime, even with a less dangerous weapon, can make an individual liable for the consequences of the crime.
• Importance of Evidence: The recovery of a blood-smeared weapon can be strong evidence of an individual’s involvement in a crime.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Gurbachan Singh to surrender within 21 days to undergo the remaining sentence. In case Gurbachan Singh does not surrender within the said period, the authorities/court will take action in accordance with law to detain him.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an individual can be held liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if they shared a common intention with the other accused, even if they did not inflict the fatal blow. This judgment clarifies that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused. This case reinforces the principle of joint liability in criminal law and clarifies that the nature of the weapon used by each accused is not the sole determinant of liability. The court has overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s order, thereby reinforcing the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases of shared criminal intent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Gurbachan Singh & Others is a significant ruling on the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that Gurbachan Singh was liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as he shared a common intention with the other accused to cause the death of Teja Singh. This decision underscores the principle of joint liability and clarifies that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused, even if they did not inflict the fatal blow. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of active participation and shared intent in criminal acts.