Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Subed Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam (30 September 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2020

Citation: [Not provided in the document]

Judges: R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Can a person be convicted of murder even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blows? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where multiple individuals were accused of a double murder, but some were acquitted. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court examined the evidence and upheld the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing the concept of common intention.

Case Background

On 05 August 2005, at approximately 6:00 PM, Abdul Motin and Abdul Barek were attacked while returning from the market on bicycles. Abdul Barek died at the scene, while Abdul Motin succumbed to his injuries in the hospital later that night. Initially, five individuals were named as accused. However, two of the accused were acquitted, leaving the appellants to face charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed this conviction. Accused nos. 3 and 5 were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, who gave them the benefit of doubt based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 of the 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.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the acquittal of two co-accused on the same evidence should lead to their acquittal as well, based on the principle of benefit of doubt.
• They pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, and 9).
• It was argued that the incident occurred after dark, making identification doubtful, relying on the cross-examination of P.W.6.
• The appellants contended that P.W.1 stated he was informed by Babulal and Asgar Ali that the appellants were the assailants, but these individuals were not examined by the prosecution.
• They submitted that the eyewitnesses only mentioned appellants no. 2 and 3 assaulting the deceased and that there was no allegation that appellant no. 1 was armed or assaulted anyone. Therefore, common intention cannot be inferred for appellant no. 1.
• The recoveries attributed to the appellants were disbelieved.
• Lastly, it was argued that no charge was framed under Section 34 of the IPC.

Arguments by the State:

• The State argued that the eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, and 9) consistently identified the appellants as participants in the assault.
• The acquittal of the co-accused should not benefit the appellants due to the nature of evidence against them.
• The State contended that the common intention was evident as the appellants were armed and lay in wait for the deceased, who were then attacked, leading to their deaths.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is justified, particularly when some co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Karnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 904 to state that the failure to charge the accused under Section 34 could not result in any prejudice and in such cases the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter.
• The Court relied on Ramaswami Avyangar vs. State of T.N., (1976) 3 SCC 779, to emphasize that common intention requires participation in the criminal enterprise, even if the roles are different. The court observed that the acts committed by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise.
• The Court relied on Nandu Rastogi vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 8 SCC 9, to state that it is not necessary for each accused to assault the deceased if they shared a common intention.
• The Court relied on Surender Chauhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2000) 4 SCC 110, to state that the absence of a positive act of assault is not necessary to establish common intention.
• The Court relied on Nand Kishore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 120, to reiterate the principles of common intention.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, and the actions of the appellants before, during, and after the assault. The Court emphasized that common intention could be inferred from the circumstances, even if not directly proven. The fact that the appellants lay in wait, stopped the deceased, and chased one of them after the initial assault, all contributed to the inference of common intention.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that appellant no. 1 did not directly assault the deceased but rejected it by stating that the action of stopping the deceased and chasing him along with other accused was sufficient to infer common intention under Section 34 of the IPC. The court relied on several precedents to establish the principle of common intention.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Common intention consists of several persons acting in unison to achieve a common purpose, though their roles may be different.”

“The presence of the mental element or the intention to commit the act if cogently established is sufficient for conviction, without actual participation in the assault.”

“A common intention to bring about a particular result may also develop on the spot as between a number of persons deducible from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously upheld the conviction.

Key Takeaways

• Common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be inferred from the actions and circumstances of the case, even if not directly proven.
• Physical participation in the assault is not necessary for a conviction under Section 34, as long as a common intention is established.
• The acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically benefit other accused if there is sufficient evidence against them.
• Eyewitness testimony, if consistent on material aspects, holds significant weight in criminal cases.

Directions

No specific directions were provided by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be inferred from the actions and circumstances of the case, even if not directly proven, and that physical participation in the assault is not necessary for a conviction under Section 34, as long as a common intention is established. This case reinforces the existing legal position on common intention and its application.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of consistent eyewitness testimony and the concept of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment reinforces the principle that individuals can be held liable for the actions of others if they share a common intention to commit a crime, even if their roles are different.