Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in 1981 Rioting Case: Dilip Shaw & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 2, 2020
Citation: Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2013, with Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2013
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a group of individuals involved in a riot be held responsible for murder if the act was not specifically targeted? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case stemming from a 1981 incident, where a group was initially involved in an assault and later a bomb attack resulted in a death. The court examined the extent of liability for members of an unlawful assembly when a death occurs during a riot. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 149 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically distinguishing between intention and knowledge in causing death. The bench comprised Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, with the opinion authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on March 25, 1981, in Howrah, West Bengal, where a violent altercation led to the death of one Gurdev Singh and injuries to several members of his family. There was a history of animosity between the families involved. On the morning of the incident, Sarban Singh (P.W. 6) was attacked by a group of 14-15 individuals, including the appellants. This initial assault involved physical violence, and a watch was stolen. As Sarban and his family retreated, bombs were hurled at them. One bomb landed near Bimla, and another exploded behind Gurdev Singh, causing fatal injuries. Gurdev Singh later succumbed to his injuries on March 26, 1981. The prosecution contended that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of assault, which resulted in Gurdev Singh’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, citing discrepancies in witness accounts and questioning the reliability of the dying declaration. The High Court at Calcutta reversed this decision, finding the appellants guilty under Part-I of Section 304 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 148 of the same code. Additionally, Paresh and Gopal were convicted under Section 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884. The High Court sentenced the appellants to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 each. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court considered the additional grounds raised by the appellants.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around several key legal provisions:

• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into two parts: Part I, which applies when the act is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and Part II, which applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with rioting, which is defined as an offense committed by an unlawful assembly using force or violence.
• Section 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884: This section penalizes the unlawful and malicious use of explosives.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s acquittal, which was based on its assessment of the evidence and witness demeanor.
• They contended that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit murder, and therefore, they could not be held liable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The appellants cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450*, *Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327*, and *Bal Mukund Sharma v. State of Bihar (2019) 5 SCC 469*, to support their argument that the common object to commit murder was not established. They argued that it was not proved that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.
• They argued that the act of throwing bombs was not targeted at any specific individual but was a random act, and thus, the intention to cause death could not be attributed to them.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal, as the evidence clearly established the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and the subsequent act of violence.
• The State contended that the appellants shared a common object to assault, which resulted in the death of Gurdev Singh, and therefore, they were liable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The State argued that the act of throwing bombs was a direct consequence of the unlawful assembly and the common object of assault, and the appellants were aware that such an act was likely to cause death.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the act of throwing bombs was random and not targeted, attempting to detach the intention to cause death from the act itself.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the finding of guilt against the appellants under Part I of Section 304 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was justified.

The court also addressed the sub-issue of whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder or merely to assault.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court distinguished the cases of *Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450*, *Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327*, and *Bal Mukund Sharma v. State of Bihar (2019) 5 SCC 469*, stating that in the present case, the common object to assault was established.
• The Court stated that the cases of *Padam Singh v. State of U.P. (2001) SCC 621* and *Sampat Babso Kale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 4 SCC 739* were not applicable because the Trial Court’s judgment was based on flawed reasoning.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Lack of Intention to Cause Death: The Court found that the appellants did not have the intention to cause the death of Gurdev Singh. The bombs were not targeted at any specific individual but were thrown randomly.
• Common Object to Assault: While the Court acknowledged that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault, it distinguished this from an intention to commit murder.
• Random Nature of Bomb Attacks: The Court noted that the bombs were thrown from the rear of the group and were not targeted at anyone specific, indicating a lack of intention to cause death.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the accused persons may have intended to teach a lesson to the members of the complainant party but there was no intention to kill. The Court also considered the fact that the bombs were thrown may be with the knowledge that the same might cause death but not with the intention to cause death because no one was the targeted victim. The court rejected the argument that the case would come under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC. The Court held that the bombs were thrown with the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The Court held that the accused persons were therefore convicted under Part I of Section 304 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court held that the Trial Court’s judgment was largely inferential and not based on a proper assessment of evidence. The Court also considered the fact that the prosecution witnesses had given a uniform version of the facts. The Court also noted that there was no major discrepancy or contradiction in the depositions of prosecution witnesses.

The Court also considered the fact that the bombs were charged from the rear of the group comprising of members of the Singh family but these were not targeted at anyone specific. The Court also considered the fact that the assaults were random, barring that on Sarban at the initial stage. The Court held that in the given facts the appellants could not be held guilty of Part I of Section 304 of the Code read with Section 149 thereof.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The bombs were thrown with the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.”
• “The Trial Court’s reasoning were fallacious and the High Court had rightly interfered in appeal.”
• “From the manner in which assault took place, we, however, are of the opinion that no intention could be attributed to the appellants to cause death of Gurdev.”

There were no minority opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Distinction between Intention and Knowledge: The judgment highlights the crucial difference between intending to cause death (Part I of Section 304 IPC) and knowing that an act is likely to cause death (Part II of Section 304 IPC).
• Liability of Unlawful Assembly Members: The judgment clarifies that members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object but not necessarily for offenses that go beyond the scope of that object.
• Importance of Targeted Violence: The Court emphasized the importance of targeted violence in determining the intention to cause death. Random acts of violence are less likely to be considered as an intent to cause death.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appellants’ conviction was modified to Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 thereof.
• The sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for five years each.
• The fine was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) in respect of each of the appellants, to be paid to the legal representatives of deceased Gurdev Singh as compensation.
• The term of default punishment was reduced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment.
• The bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks.
• Any detention already undergone by the appellants in the same case would be adjusted while computing the period of sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an accused to be convicted under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 thereof, there must be an intention to cause death. If there is no intention to cause death, the accused can only be convicted under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 thereof. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 304 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and provides guidance on the liability of members of unlawful assemblies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the conviction of the appellants from Part I to Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, reducing their sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment, and enhancing the fine to Rs. 50,000 each. The Court clarified that while the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly, there was no intention to cause the death of Gurdev Singh, leading to the modification of the conviction. The judgment underscores the distinction between intention and knowledge in determining culpability for homicide.