Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 132
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can the common intention of a group of individuals be inferred when not all members directly participate in the fatal act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a murder case. The court examined the extent of liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically focusing on whether individuals who did not directly inflict the fatal injury could be held equally culpable for murder. This judgment clarifies the nuances of shared criminal intent and its application in cases involving multiple accused.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on March 11, 1998, at approximately 5:30 PM. Mohan Mehtar, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was riding a motorcycle with Santosh Rai (PW-2) and Kamal @ Kamlesh (PW-13) when they were stopped by Harnam Singh, Balvir Singh, Bhav Singh, and Bharat Thakur. The situation escalated when Bharat Thakur attacked Mohan with a lathi. As Mohan tried to escape, Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh allegedly caught hold of him, and Harnam Singh shot Mohan in the face with a country-made pistol, resulting in his immediate death. The incident was witnessed by Santosh Rai (PW-2), Devendra Rai (PW-3), and Kamal @ Kamlesh (PW-13).
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 11, 1998, 5:30 PM | Mohan Mehtar was attacked and killed. |
| March 11, 1998, 6:00 PM | FIR No. 114/98 was lodged at Police Station Bina. |
| March 12, 1998 | FIR was presented before the Court of JMFC, Bina. |
| August 26, 2008 | High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh affirmed the conviction of the appellants. |
| February 19, 2019 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Harnam Singh under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1A) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh were convicted under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. All were sentenced to imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh upheld these convictions. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section 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.”
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for wrongful restraint.
- Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for possessing prohibited arms.
- Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for using prohibited arms.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the case was a result of a blind murder, and the FIR was manipulated. They contended that the medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts regarding the number of weapons used and the distance from which the shot was fired.
- It was submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not definitively match the recovered bullet with the pistol seized from Harnam Singh, raising doubts about his involvement.
- The defense also presented a witness (DW-1) who claimed the incident occurred at 3:30 PM, not 5:30 PM, and that he did not see the accused at the scene.
- Appellants Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh argued that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and that Section 34 of the IPC was incorrectly applied to them.
State’s Arguments:
- The State contended that the eyewitness accounts of Santosh Rai (PW-2), Devendra Rai (PW-3), and Kamal (PW-13) were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the FSL report.
- The State argued that the minor discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies were insignificant and did not undermine their credibility.
- The State asserted that the recovery of the pistol from Harnam Singh’s house and the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| FIR Manipulation and Ante-dating |
|
Appellants |
| Contradictions in Evidence |
|
Appellants |
| Unreliable Eyewitnesses |
|
Appellants Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh |
| Consistent Eyewitness Accounts |
|
State |
| Minor Discrepancies |
|
State |
| Recovery of Pistol |
|
State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellants.
- Whether the courts below were right in invoking Section 34 of the IPC to convict accused Nos. 2 and 3.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellants. | Partially upheld. | The court upheld the conviction of Harnam Singh but set aside the conviction of Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. |
| Whether the courts below were right in invoking Section 34 of the IPC to convict accused Nos. 2 and 3. | Incorrectly Invoked. | The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos. 2 and 3 shared a common intention with Harnam Singh to commit murder. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241 – The court reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses do not shake their trustworthiness.
- Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 546 – The court reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses do not affect the trustworthiness of the witnesses.
- Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 – The court reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses do not affect the trustworthiness of the witnesses.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar and others (2017) 14 SCC 614 – The court held that the mere fact that on the inquest report, the FIR number was written by different ink cannot be the basis for observing that the FIR was ante-timed or ante-dated.
- Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others (2003) 12 SCC 606 – The court held that oral evidence has primacy and medical evidence is opinionative.
- State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another (1988) 4 SCC 302 – The court held that eyewitnesses’ account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.
- Ramesh Singh alias Phooti v. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 305 – The court discussed the principle of joint liability under Section 34 IPC and that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.
- Balu @ Bala Subaramaniam and another v. State (UT of Pondicherry) (2016) 15 SCC 471 – The court referred to the decision in Ramesh Singh regarding common intention.
- Dhanna v. State of M.P. (1996) 10 SCC 79 – The trial court placed reliance on this case to invoke Section 34 IPC.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies do not shake trustworthiness of witnesses. |
| Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 546 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies in oral testimony do not affect trustworthiness. |
| Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle that minor discrepancies in oral testimony do not affect trustworthiness. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar and others (2017) 14 SCC 614 | Supreme Court of India | Held that different ink in FIR number on inquest report does not mean FIR was ante-timed. |
| Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others (2003) 12 SCC 606 | Supreme Court of India | Held that oral evidence has primacy and medical evidence is opinionative. |
| State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another (1988) 4 SCC 302 | Supreme Court of India | Held that eyewitness accounts should be assessed independently and not solely by medical evidence. |
| Ramesh Singh alias Phooti v. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 305 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the principle of joint liability under Section 34 IPC and how common intention can be inferred. |
| Balu @ Bala Subaramaniam and another v. State (UT of Pondicherry) (2016) 15 SCC 471 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to the decision in Ramesh Singh regarding common intention. |
| Dhanna v. State of M.P. (1996) 10 SCC 79 | Supreme Court of India | Trial court relied on this case to invoke Section 34 IPC. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| FIR was manipulated and ante-dated | The court rejected this argument, stating that the mention of the inquest number in the FIR does not prove it was registered after the inquest. |
| Medical evidence contradicts eyewitness accounts | The court held that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts do not undermine their credibility and that oral evidence has primacy over medical evidence. |
| FSL report did not match bullet to the recovered pistol | The court stated that the FSL report’s indecisive opinion does not affect the prosecution’s case, which is based on eyewitness accounts. |
| Eyewitnesses were not reliable | The court found the eyewitnesses to be credible, noting that they provided a consistent account of the incident. |
| Section 34 IPC was incorrectly applied to Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh | The court agreed and set aside the conviction of Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241]* and other similar cases to reiterate that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine their credibility.
- The Court cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar and others [2017 14 SCC 614]* to dismiss the argument that the FIR was ante-dated.
- The Court used Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others [2003 12 SCC 606]* and State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another [1988 4 SCC 302]* to emphasize that oral evidence has primacy over medical evidence.
- The Court referred to Ramesh Singh alias Phooti v. State of A.P. [2004 11 SCC 305]* to explain the principles of joint liability under Section 34 of the IPC and how common intention is inferred.
- The Court distinguished Dhanna v. State of M.P. [1996 10 SCC 79]* by stating that the facts in the present case did not warrant the application of Section 34 IPC for Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The consistent and clear accounts provided by the eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13) were deemed trustworthy. The court noted that minor discrepancies were normal and did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.
- Medical Evidence: While the medical evidence was considered, the court emphasized that oral evidence has primacy. The presence of gunshot residue near the left eye of the deceased corroborated the eyewitness accounts of Harnam Singh firing at close range.
- FSL Report: The court acknowledged that the FSL report could not definitively match the bullet to the recovered pistol. However, it noted that the pistol was in working condition and could cause fatal injuries, and this did not undermine the eyewitness accounts.
- Common Intention: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh shared a common intention with Harnam Singh to commit murder. The court noted that they were unarmed and did not actively participate in the fatal act.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Eyewitnesses | 40% |
| Medical Evidence | 20% |
| FSL Report | 15% |
| Lack of Common Intention for Accused 2 and 3 | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Issue: Whether Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh shared common intention for murder.
Evidence: Balvir and Bhav Singh caught hold of Mohan, but were unarmed.
Analysis: No evidence of prior meeting of minds or knowledge of Harnam Singh’s weapon.
Conclusion: Common intention not established for Balvir and Bhav Singh.
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Eyewitness Testimony: The judgment reaffirms the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, especially when corroborated by other evidence.
- Application of Section 34 IPC: The ruling clarifies that Section 34 of the IPC requires proof of a pre-arranged plan and a shared intention to commit a specific crime. Mere presence or participation in an event is not sufficient for conviction under this section.
- Distinction between Direct and Indirect Participation: The court highlighted the distinction between the individual who directly committed the act (Harnam Singh) and those who assisted (Balvir and Bhav Singh). While the former was held liable for murder, the latter were acquitted due to the absence of common intention.
- Minor Discrepancies: The judgment reiterates that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts are common and do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the witnesses.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that Harnam Singh must surrender himself within four weeks from the date of the judgment to serve the remaining sentence. If he fails to do so, he shall be taken into custody.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to be applicable, there must be a pre-arranged plan and a shared intention to commit the specific crime. The court clarified that mere presence or participation in an event is not sufficient for conviction under this section. This judgment reinforces the principle that each accused must have a conscious and shared intention to commit the criminal act for joint liability to be established.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh partially upheld the convictions, affirming the life imprisonment of Harnam Singh for murder while acquitting Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a common intention for applying Section 34 of the IPC. This case underscores the necessity of clear evidence of shared criminal intent for joint liability in cases involving multiple accused.