Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: Dhanpal vs. State NCT of Delhi (27 April 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2020

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a group of individuals be held liable for murder when only one of them inflicts the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a fatal assault, where the court examined the concept of common intention. The court upheld the conviction of three individuals, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, with Justice Aniruddha Bose authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on the evening of August 9, 1996, in Purana Maujpur, North East Delhi. Sanjeev, while riding his two-wheeler, hit a cycle cart belonging to Sanjay. This led to a verbal altercation between Sanjeev and Sanjay. Sant Ram intervened, siding with Sanjeev. After a temporary truce facilitated by Narender Kumar and Sobha Ram, relatives of Sanjay, Sanjeev returned with Kamal, Dhanpal, and Sant Ram. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Sanjay’s cousin, arrived at the scene after his dairy work. Dhanpal allegedly exhorted, “Leh lo gaadi wale ko bach ke jaane na pai,” after which all four attacked Ajay. Kamal stabbed Ajay multiple times, resulting in his death. Sanjay and Narender took Ajay to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found Dhanpal, Sanjeev, Sant Ram, and Kamal guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, primarily relying on the eyewitness accounts of Sanjay (P.W.1), Narender Kumar (P.W.3), and Sobha Ram (P.W.4). The Trial Court noted that Kamal’s bloodstained clothes were recovered based on his statement. All four accused were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, confirming the conviction and sentence. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stipulates that “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.” The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appellants shared a common intention with Kamal to commit the murder of Ajay.

Arguments

The appellants argued that there was no evidence to convict them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They claimed they were unaware that Kamal was carrying a knife or that he intended to inflict fatal injuries on Ajay. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies, particularly regarding the exact words used by Dhanpal during the exhortation. P.W.1 stated Dhanpal said, “Leh lo gaadi wale ko bach ke jaane na pai,” while P.W.3 said, “lelo Dhadi wale ko bach ke na jane paye.” The appellants also pointed to the delay in registering the FIR as a reason to doubt the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the appellants had the common intention to commit the murder of Ajay Kumar Sharma.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2019) 5 SCC 210]: This case was cited to support the finding that there was a prior meeting of minds among the accused, establishing common intention.
• Rajkishore Purohit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2017) 9 SCC 483]: This case established that to prove common intention to cause murder, it is not necessary for all accused persons to have overt acts or possess weapons.
• Richhpal Singh Meena vs. Ghasi alias Ghisa and Others [(2014) 8 SCC 918]: This case held that if the nature of the assault is likely to cause death, the accused are deemed to know the consequences of their actions.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2019) 5 SCC 210]*: The Court used this case to support its finding that the appellants had a prior meeting of minds, establishing a common intention to commit the crime.
• Rajkishore Purohit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2017) 9 SCC 483]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that it is not necessary for all accused persons to have overt acts or possess weapons to establish a common intention to commit murder.
• Richhpal Singh Meena vs. Ghasi alias Ghisa and Others [(2014) 8 SCC 918]*: The Court used this case to establish that the accused are deemed to know the consequences of their actions if the nature of the assault is likely to cause death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent eyewitness testimonies, the appellants’ collective actions, and the nature of the assault. The court emphasized the prior meeting of minds and the common intention to cause harm, as evidenced by Dhanpal’s exhortation and the physical restraint of the victim. The court also considered the fact that the appellants returned together to the scene of the crime, indicating a pre-arranged plan. The court found that the discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies were minor and did not undermine their credibility. The explanation for the delay in registering the FIR was also deemed satisfactory.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the consistent eyewitness accounts, the appellants’ collective return to the scene, Dhanpal’s exhortation, and the nature of the assault. The court found that the appellants shared a common intention with Kamal to cause the death of Ajay. The court also considered the prior meeting of minds and the fact that the appellants grappled the victim while Kamal inflicted the fatal injuries. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts and the delay in filing the FIR, finding that these issues did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The court relied on the principle that if the nature of the assault is likely to cause death, the accused are deemed to know the consequences of their actions.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the facts or law that would have led to a different outcome. The court’s decision was based on the established legal principles and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court concluded that the appellants were guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court stated, “There are sufficient materials , however , to establish the three appellants had returned together to the place of occurrence and attacked the deceased victim with Dhanpal exhorting to kill Ajay. They had grappled the victim and said Kamal inflicted multiple injuries on him with the knife.”

The court further stated, “On the basis of evidence disclosed , the Trial Court and the High Court found that there was prior meeting of minds of all the four convicts and all the three appellants had intention common with that of Kamal.”

The court also observed, “We find the approach of the Trial Court and the High Court in appeal was proper in dealing with the discrepancies pointed out on behalf of the appellants. The delay in registering the FIR has been explained properly and judgment of conviction cannot fail for that reason.”

There was no minority opinion in this case as it was a unanimous decision by the two judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: The judgment underscores the significance of common intention in establishing criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The presence of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds is crucial for holding multiple individuals accountable for a criminal act.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The court’s reliance on eyewitness testimony highlights its importance in criminal trials. Minor discrepancies in testimonies do not necessarily undermine their credibility if the core facts remain consistent.
• Nature of Assault: The nature of the assault and the likelihood of causing death are significant factors in determining the accused’s knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
• Implications for Future Cases: This judgment reinforces the principle that individuals who participate in a group assault where one person inflicts a fatal injury can be held liable for murder if they shared a common intention to cause harm.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled.
• The appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks to serve their sentence.
• If the appellants failed to surrender within the stipulated time, the Trial Court was instructed to take necessary steps to take them into custody.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when several persons act together with a common intention to commit a crime, each person is liable for the act as if it were done by him alone. The court reaffirmed the position of law that it is not necessary for all accused persons to have overt acts or possess weapons to establish a common intention to commit murder. The court also emphasized that if the nature of the assault is likely to cause death, the accused are deemed to know the consequences of their actions. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces existing legal positions on common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the appellants shared a common intention to commit the murder of Ajay Kumar Sharma, based on the eyewitness testimonies, their collective actions, and the nature of the assault. The judgment reinforces the principles of common intention and the importance of eyewitness accounts in criminal trials.