Supreme Court to Examine Disparity in Convictions under Section 34 IPC in Murder Case

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 79
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

When multiple individuals commit a crime together, should they all receive the same punishment? The Supreme Court of India is set to examine this crucial question regarding the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. This case involves a murder where the High Court convicted some of the accused for murder and others for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, raising questions about fairness and consistency in sentencing.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal will be looking into this matter. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

Four individuals were accused of offenses under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 302 (murder), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court found all four guilty of these charges. However, the High Court later altered the convictions for three of the accused, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The prosecution’s case was that accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 held the deceased while the appellant (accused No. 1) assaulted the deceased with a sickle on the head and neck, resulting in fatal injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all four accused under Sections 302, 341, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 filed a joint appeal, and accused Nos. 2 and 4 filed a separate appeal before the High Court. The High Court acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of murder but convicted them under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Accused No. 1’s conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4’s Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court, and their Review Petition was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which 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.” This section deals with the concept of joint criminal liability, where each person involved in a crime is held responsible as if they had committed the act individually.

The other relevant sections are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

The primary argument made by the appellant’s (accused No. 1) counsel was that if Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was applied, then all the accused should have received the same conviction and sentence. Since the High Court convicted accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant (accused No. 1) should also have been convicted under the same provision and given the same sentence. The counsel argued that the High Court’s decision to uphold the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while convicting the others under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was a travesty of justice.

The counsel for the appellant also argued that either all four accused should have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or all four should have been convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, given the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The counsel did not press other arguments related to self-defense and the appellant’s innocence.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant (accused No. 1) should have received the same conviction and sentence as accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4, given the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

No authorities were discussed in this order.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

No authorities were discussed in this order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary concern that weighed in the mind of the Court was the inconsistency in the convictions of the accused. The Court noted that while the High Court convicted accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it upheld the conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This discrepancy raised a substantial question regarding the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether all accused should receive the same conviction and sentence when they act in furtherance of a common intention.

The Court emphasized that if Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was applicable, the punishment should be uniform for all the accused. The court found that the argument regarding the inconsistency in the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had merit. The Court decided to examine the issue further and listed the matter for final hearing.

“Prima facie, we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, however, after considering the submissions, we feel that this appeal raises a substantial question which needs to be addressed and decided by this Court.”

“The argument advanced by learned senior counsel which has appealed to us is that if section 34 IPC was applied, then, each one of the accused should have been convicted under the same provision and awarded the same sentence.”

“Considering the limited question to be considered, we expedite the hearing.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court is examining whether all accused persons should receive the same conviction and sentence when Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is applied.
• The case highlights potential inconsistencies in the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by lower courts.
• The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how joint criminal liability is interpreted and applied in India.

Directions

The Supreme Court has directed that the matter be listed for hearing on 13.03.2024.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has decided to examine the issue of whether all accused persons should receive the same conviction and sentence when Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is applied. This case will further develop the law on the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has taken up the appeal to examine the disparity in convictions under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in a murder case. The court will consider whether all accused persons should receive the same conviction and sentence when they act in furtherance of a common intention. The decision in this case will have important implications for the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in future cases.