Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Palakom Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Kerala (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 285

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can individuals be held liable for murder with common intention, even if their actions were not part of an unlawful assembly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, examining the nuances of Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case revolved around a tragic incident where a father and son were murdered following a dispute at a mosque. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the principle of joint liability. The judgment was authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The case involves a tragic incident that occurred on December 5, 1995, around 2:15 PM, in front of a Madrassa building within the premises of Bardar Masjid, Belincha, Kumbadage village. On this Friday, many male members of the Jamayath had gathered for prayer. The events leading up to the violence were rooted in a dispute regarding the termination of the mosque’s old Katheeb (priest). The new Katheeb had been appointed after the previous one was terminated due to a letter with amorous overtones sent to a woman named Mimuna.

After the prayer, a dispute arose between those who supported the removal of the old Katheeb and those who opposed it. Despite requests to stay and discuss the new Katheeb’s suitability, many people left. Approximately 40 people, including the accused, remained. During the discussion, one of the witnesses, PW-1, declared that the old Katheeb’s termination was proper. At this point, the accused, who were standing in a group, became agitated.

As PW-1 was being escorted out, the deceased, Assainar and Abdul Rahiman (father and son, respectively), along with PW-2, followed. The accused also exited the mosque in a group. Accused No. 2 then shouted, “There they go! Why simply watch? Go and stab.” Immediately, Accused No. 1 stabbed Assainar in the back with a dagger. When Abdul Rahiman tried to intervene, he was also stabbed by Accused No. 1. Subsequently, Accused No. 3 stabbed Abdul Rahiman. PW-2 was also stabbed when he tried to intervene.

Assainar and Abdul Rahiman succumbed to their injuries. The post-mortem examination revealed that Assainar died from a stab wound that penetrated his heart, while Abdul Rahiman died from a stab wound that severed his carotid artery.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially convicted the accused, including the appellants, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with other offenses. The High Court of Kerala, on appeal, altered the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, finding that the accused shared a common intention to commit the murder. Accused No. 2 died during the proceedings, and Accused Nos. 1 and 3 appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

✓ Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a 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 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly. It states, “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

The key distinction lies in the requirement of a “common intention” under Section 34 and a “common object” under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 34 requires a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds, while Section 149 applies to members of an unlawful assembly who share a common object.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides focused on the applicability of Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the evidence supported a finding of common intention.

Arguments of the Appellants (Accused No. 1 and 3)

• The primary argument was that the prosecution’s case initially rested on the theory of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the High Court did not uphold the existence of an unlawful assembly, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not sustainable.

• It was argued that there was no evidence of a pre-existing common intention to commit murder. The actions of the accused were not coordinated, and the incident occurred on the spur of the moment.

• Accused No. 3 argued that there was no corresponding injury in the post-mortem report that could be attributed to him, suggesting he was falsely implicated.

• It was contended that the injuries on the accused were not explained by the prosecution, which raised doubts about the prosecution’s version of events.

• It was submitted that even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, it would fall under the exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguments of the State

• The State argued that the evidence and circumstances of the case clearly established a common intention among the accused to commit the crime.

• The High Court’s finding that the accused shared a common intention to cause the death of Assainar and Abdul Rahiman was correct.

• The prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key question:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after not upholding the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 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

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities to determine the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Common Intention: The Court found that the accused shared a common intention to cause the death of Assainar and Abdul Rahiman. This intention was formed on the spur of the moment when Accused No. 2 exhorted to stab.
• Overt Acts: The Court noted that the overt acts of the accused, including the use of daggers and the stabbing of the deceased, supported the finding of common intention.
• Eye-Witness Testimony: The testimony of PW-2, an injured eye-witness, was crucial in establishing the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused.
• Medical Evidence: The post-mortem reports confirmed the cause of death and supported the prosecution’s case.
• Applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court emphasized that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies even if not all accused inflict fatal injuries, as long as they share a common intention.

The Court rejected the argument that the case should fall under the exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with common intention to commit murder.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was correct in convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court stated, “Section 34 is, therefore, clearly attracted to the case of accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 even though the injuries assigned to him(accused no.3) may not be on the vital part of the body of the deceased.”

The Court also noted, “In the present case, the prosecution has been able to establish the common intention of the accused persons for their overt acts in commission of crime and they have been rightly held guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.”

Furthermore, the Court added, “From the analysis, we are satisfied that the appellants in furtherance of common intention committed an act of murder of deceased Assainar and Abdul Rahiman and the High Court under the impugned judgment has rightly held both the appellants guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• Joint Liability: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, establishes joint liability for criminal acts done with a common intention, even if not all accused inflict the fatal blow.
• Common Intention: Common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment, and does not necessarily require pre-planning.
• Section 149 vs. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is possible even if Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (unlawful assembly) is not established, provided there is evidence of a common intention.
• Evidence: The prosecution must establish common intention through evidence, which may include eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the accused appellants (Palakom Abdul Rahiman and G. Moideenkutty) be cancelled, and they were ordered to surrender forthwith to serve their life sentences.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be applied even if the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not established, provided there is evidence of a common intention to commit the crime. This reaffirms the principle of joint liability and clarifies that common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the evidence established a common intention among the accused to commit the murder, even though the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not upheld. This judgment reinforces the principle of joint liability in criminal law and highlights that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment.