Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 34 IPC in Culpable Homicide Case: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) INSC 23 (07 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 23

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

Can mere presence and a statement made during a crime be enough to convict someone under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal shooting, clarifying the requirements for establishing vicarious liability. The Court overturned the conviction of two individuals, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of common intention and participation in the criminal act. This judgment underscores the principle that individuals cannot be held liable for the actions of others without sufficient proof of their involvement in a shared criminal plan.

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, who owned a hotel with his father (PW6), believed that the accused were responsible for a raid conducted on his establishment. This perceived grievance led to a confrontation. The deceased’s father, PW6, upon searching for his son, witnessed the accused grappling with the deceased in the street light. PW10, a friend of the deceased, also witnessed the incident. PW13, another witness, testified about a prior plan among the accused to harm the deceased. According to the prosecution, A3 and A4 made a statement, “what are you seeing now,” after which A1 shot the deceased. A2 also brandished a gun before the shooting. The deceased was then taken to a hospital about 3 kms away. PW6 filed a complaint where he did not mention that A3 and A4 instigated A1 to shoot. However, in a subsequent statement to the police, he added that A3 and A4 had exhorted A1 to fire.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The court reasoned that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and thus fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The trial court disbelieved the testimony of PW13 regarding a prior plan among the accused. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision but did not specifically address the application of Section 34 IPC to A3 and A4. A3 and A4 then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn their conviction. The de facto complainant also appealed, seeking a modification of the conviction to Section 302 IPC (murder). A1 and A2 did not file appeals. The Supreme Court considered the appeals of A3 and A4, and the de facto complainant, to determine if the case fell under Section 304 Part I or Section 302 IPC.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 34 IPC 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.”

The Court notes that the phrase “in furtherance of the common intention” was added to the original Section 34. The Court also discusses Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines “act” to include a series of acts or omissions as a single act or omission. This is relevant as Section 34 IPC applies to a series of acts done by several persons constituting a single criminal offense. The court emphasizes that Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction, importing the criminal act of one person to others who share a common intention. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this common intention with substantial, concrete, and clear evidence. The court also highlights that mere common intention is not enough, there must be an act done in furtherance of that intention.

Arguments

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

• ✓ The evidence of PW13 was disbelieved, so Section 34 IPC should not apply.
• ✓ PW6’s statement was improved upon, and his presence was doubtful.
• ✓ If A2 brandished the gun first, A3 and A4 would have asked A2 to shoot.
• ✓ PW10 and PW23 turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case.
• ✓ A mere statement is not sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC.

Submission of the Respondents:

• ✓ The accused are influential persons, and the case falls under Section 302 IPC.
• ✓ Physical act by the accused is not necessary to attract Section 34 IPC.
• ✓ Mere presence of the accused suffices for Section 34 IPC.
• ✓ The trial court erred in applying Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

Submission of the State:

• ✓ The High Court gave cogent reasoning, and the trial court considered all material.
• ✓ Recoveries of weapons were proven; hence, no need to interfere with the conviction.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issues addressed by the court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the High Court and the trial court were correct in applying Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 302 IPC.
2. Whether the conviction of A3 and A4 under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified based on the evidence.
3. Whether the statement made by A3 and A4, “what are you seeing now,” would constitute an offense punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several judgments and legal provisions to interpret Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These are categorized below:

On the Interpretation of Section 34 IPC:

• ✓ Queen v. Gorachand Gope, (1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16): Calcutta High Court. This case highlighted the need for a common design or intention for all to be liable for an act.
• ✓ Suresh v State of U.P. ((2001) 3 SCC 673): Supreme Court of India. This case clarified that the accused should have done some act with nexus to the offense.
• ✓ Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar, [(2003) 1 SCC 268]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that the requirement of the statute is sharing the common intention upon being present at the place of occurrence.
• ✓ Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P., [(2020) 4 SCC 126]: Supreme Court of India. This case clarified that Section 34 is attracted when a criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all.
• ✓ Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1): Privy Council. The court discussed that a criminal act includes a series of acts and omissions.
• ✓ Mehbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 148): Privy Council. This case emphasized that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan.
• ✓ Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 605]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that there must be material to show that the overt act was done in furtherance of the common intention.
• ✓ Krishnan & Another v. State of Kerala [(1996) 10 SCC 508]: Supreme Court of India. This case clarified that the establishment of an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow Section 34 to operate.
• ✓ Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. [(2000) 4 SCC 110]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that a person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime.
• ✓ Gopi Nath @ Jhallar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that Section 34 lays down the rule of joint responsibility for criminal acts.
• ✓ Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 305]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that every person who did the criminal act with common intention would be responsible for the offense.
• ✓ Nand Kishore V . State Of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 12 SCC 120)]: Supreme Court of India. This case clarified that the criminal act must be done by several persons and that some individual participation is required.
• ✓ Shyamal Ghosh V . State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646)]: Supreme Court of India. This case stated that Section 34 IPC applies where two or more accused are present and there must be common intention and participation of the accused in the crime.
• ✓ Virendra Singh V . State of Madhya Pradesh ((2010) 8 SCC 407): Supreme Court of India. This case reiterated that common intention implies a prearranged plan and acting in concert.

Legal Provisions:

• ✓ Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines common intention and joint liability in criminal acts.
• ✓ Section 33, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines “act” to include a series of acts or omissions.
• ✓ Section 300, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and its exceptions, specifically Exception 4 which deals with culpable homicide in cases of sudden fight.
• ✓ Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines punishment for murder.
• ✓ Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The court used the authorities to explain the principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC and the need for an act in furtherance of that intention.
• ✓ The authorities of Suresh v State of U.P. ((2001) 3 SCC 673), Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar, [(2003) 1 SCC 268], Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P., [(2020) 4 SCC 126], Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1), Mehbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 148), Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 605], Krishnan & Another v. State of Kerala [(1996) 10 SCC 508], Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. [(2000) 4 SCC 110], Gopi Nath @ Jhallar v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620], Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 305], Nand Kishore V . State Of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 12 SCC 120)], Shyamal Ghosh V . State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646)] and Virendra Singh V . State of Madhya Pradesh ((2010) 8 SCC 407) were used to highlight the essential elements of Section 34 IPC, emphasizing the need for both common intention and an act in furtherance of that intention.
• ✓ The court relied on these authorities to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1 to commit the crime.

The court found that the trial court and the High Court had erred in applying Section 34 IPC to A3 and A4. The court reasoned that the evidence of PW13 was unreliable, and PW6 had improved his statement. The court also noted that A2 was already brandishing a gun, making it illogical for A3 and A4 to ask A1 to shoot. The court held that the statement “what are you seeing now” was insufficient to establish a common intention to commit the crime. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A3 and A4 had shared a common intention with A1.

The court stated:

“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.”

“The question is as to whether the said statement would constitute an offense punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC… 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction of A3 and A4 was primarily influenced by the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a common intention and participation in the crime. The court emphasized the following points:

• ✓ Doubtful Testimony of PW13: The court found the testimony of PW13 to be unreliable and improbable.
• ✓ Improved Statements of PW6: The court noted that PW6 had improved upon his statements, making his testimony less credible.
• ✓ Illogical Sequence of Events: The court found it illogical that A3 and A4 would instigate A1 to shoot when A2 was already brandishing a gun.
• ✓ Insufficient Evidence for Common Intention: The court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that A3 and A4 shared a common intention with A1 to commit the crime.
• ✓ Lack of Awareness of A1’s Weapon: The court noted that there was no evidence to show that A3 and A4 were aware that A1 had a gun.
• ✓ Statement Insufficient for Section 34: The court held that the statement made by A3 and A4 was not sufficient to establish their participation in the crime under Section 34 IPC.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab underscores the critical importance of proving both common intention and an act in furtherance of that intention for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to apply. The court clarified that mere presence or a statement made during a crime is not sufficient to establish vicarious liability. The prosecution must present concrete evidence demonstrating that the accused shared a common intention and actively participated in the criminal act. This judgment serves as a reminder that individuals cannot be held liable for the actions of others without sufficient proof of their involvement in a shared criminal plan. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction of A3 and A4 highlights the need for a thorough examination of evidence and a careful application of legal principles in criminal cases. It also reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.