Supreme Court overturns conviction under Section 302 with Section 34 IPC: Chandra Pratap Singh vs. State of M.P. (2023) INSC 887 (9 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 9 October 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 887
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a High Court alter a conviction from Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC without prior notice to the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the High Court’s decision. The case involved a triple murder and the subsequent conviction of several accused, including the appellant, Chandra Pratap Singh. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with Justice Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of three individuals: Uma Prasad, Vinod Kumar, and Munau @ Anant Kishore Khare. On June 2, 1987, Vinod Kumar and Munau went to Naugaon village for medical treatment. When they did not return, their father, Uma Prasad, sent Naval Kishore (PW-1) and Manua Chammer (PW-2) to search for them. Uma Prasad also joined the search. Near a Hanuman temple, they encountered a group of armed individuals, including the appellant, Chandra Pratap Singh, and another accused, who were armed with spears. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the other accused stopped Uma Prasad, causing him to fall from his bicycle. Subsequently, other accused persons assaulted and killed Uma Prasad. The appellant was further accused of dragging Uma Prasad’s body and throwing it into a well.

The prosecution also alleged that the accused went towards the bus stand and killed Vinod Kumar and Munau Khare. However, all the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court for the murder of Vinod Kumar and Munau, which became final.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, 17 accused were prosecuted for the triple murder. The Trial Court convicted several accused, including the appellant, under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, and Section 201 of the IPC. However, the High Court acquitted some of the accused and modified the conviction of the appellant and others to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC. The appellant, along with two other accused, filed a joint appeal before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed their appeals by substituting their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC with Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was maintained. The Supreme Court noted that a Special Leave Petition filed by one of the co-accused was dismissed, and the other co-accused did not appeal.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 34 of the IPC: This section defines the concept of common intention, stating, “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 141 of the IPC: This section defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object.
• Section 148 of the IPC: This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the IPC: This section deals with the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.
• Section 201 of the IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 302 of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.

Additionally, the judgment refers to Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), which outlines the powers of the Appellate Court, and Section 216 of the Cr.PC, which allows for alteration or addition of charges.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court erred in hearing the appeal in the absence of the appellant’s advocate. The cause title of the High Court judgment mentioned the absence of the appellant’s advocate, and the judgment did not record any submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
• The appellant’s counsel contended that the High Court could not have convicted the appellant with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC because there was no evidence of a common intention.
• The appellant’s counsel further argued that the High Court should have provided notice to the appellant that it intended to modify the charge to invoke Section 34 of the IPC. The alteration of the charge prejudiced the appellant, as the ingredients of Section 34 were not proven.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the High Court had carefully reviewed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that under Section 386 of the Cr.PC read with Section 216 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has the power to alter or add a charge when no prejudice is shown to the accused.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC.
• The respondent’s counsel emphasized the gravity of the offense and argued against any interference.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that the High Court should have provided notice before altering the charge to invoke Section 34 of IPC is a significant point, highlighting the importance of fair procedure and the right of the accused to defend themselves against specific charges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether any prejudice was caused to the appellant as his appeal was heard in the absence of his advocate.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in altering the charge to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC without providing notice to the appellant.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the existence of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Mala Singh v. State of Haryana [(2019) 5 SCC 127]: This case was cited by the appellant to argue that the appellant could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC as there was no evidence of common intention.
• Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266]: This case discussed the conversion of a charge from Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court explained that Section 34 and Section 149 deal with vicarious liability and that the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused if the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention.
• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor [AIR 1925 PC 1]: This case was cited in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan for the proposition that if several persons do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply.
• Mannam Venkatadari v. State of A.P. [(1971) 3 SCC 254]: This case was cited in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan for the proposition that if several persons do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply.
• Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P. [(1992) 1 SCC 49]: This case was cited in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan for the proposition that if several persons do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply.
• Ram Tahal v. State of U.P. [(1972) 1 SCC 136]: This case was cited in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan for the proposition that if several persons do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply.

Statutory Provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines common intention.
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines unlawful assembly.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows for alteration or addition of charges.
• Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Outlines the powers of the Appellate Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266]* to emphasize the distinction between common intention (Section 34 IPC) and common object (Section 149 IPC), and held that the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused if the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention. The Court also considered Mala Singh v. State of Haryana [(2019) 5 SCC 127]* to highlight that conviction under Section 34 requires evidence of common intention. The Court also considered the other cases mentioned in the judgment of Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266]* to explain the difference between Section 34 and Section 149 of the IPC. The Court also considered the statutory provisions of Section 34, 141, 148, 149, 201 and 302 of the IPC and Section 216 and 386 of the CrPC to come to the conclusion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of natural justice and the need to ensure a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s actions in hearing the appeal without the appellant’s advocate and altering the charge without prior notice caused significant prejudice to the appellant. The absence of a finding on the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC and the lack of reasons for concluding that the accused had acted in furtherance of a common intention also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also considered the fact that the incident occurred in 1987 and the present appeal is of 2011 and therefore, it would be unjust to pass an order of remand.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of upholding the conviction under Section 34 of the IPC if there was sufficient evidence of common intention. However, after a thorough review of the evidence, the Court found no such evidence. The Court also considered the possibility of remanding the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing but decided against it due to the long passage of time since the incident.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed an illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction without hearing the appellant or his advocate. The Court also held that the High Court should have put the appellant on notice about the proposed alteration of the charge. The Court also found that there was no evidence of prior meeting of minds to prove common intention, which is a necessary ingredient of Section 34 of the IPC. The Court, therefore, set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court, however, upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 201 of the IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence, as the evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent on the role played by the appellant in dragging the dead body of the deceased and throwing the same into a well. The appellant had already undergone the sentence for the said offence.

The Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate.”

The Court further stated, “Therefore, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant by altering the charge without giving any notice to the appellant or his advocate about the charge.”

The Court also observed, “There is no material to prove the existence of common intention which is the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC.”

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with both judges concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the alteration of charges by appellate courts. It underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring that the accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against specific charges.

The Court’s decision also clarifies the distinction between common intention and common object, emphasizing that the mere presence of multiple individuals at the scene of a crime does not automatically establish common intention.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate Courts must ensure that the accused is represented by counsel before hearing an appeal against conviction.
• Appellate Courts cannot alter or add a charge without putting the accused on notice, especially when such alteration is likely to cause prejudice to the accused.
• Conviction under Section 34 of the IPC requires proof of a common intention to commit the crime, not merely a common object.
• The principles of natural justice and fair trial are paramount in the judicial process.

The judgment serves as a reminder to appellate courts to exercise their powers judiciously and to ensure that the accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against specific charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled as the appellant had already undergone the sentence for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an Appellate Court cannot alter a charge to invoke Section 34 of the IPC without notice to the accused, especially when the original charge was under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and there is no evidence of common intention. This judgment reinforces the importance of natural justice and fair trial and clarifies the distinction between common intention and common object. It also clarifies the circumstances under which a charge can be altered by an appellate court.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while upholding the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that the accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against specific charges. The judgment also clarified the distinction between common intention and common object under the IPC.