Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Common Intention: Maheshwari Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2023)

Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1068
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can mere presence at a crime scene along with the main perpetrator lead to a conviction for murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where two individuals were convicted for murder based on the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court examined whether the presence of the accused and their actions constituted a shared intention to commit the crime, even though they did not directly inflict the fatal injury. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of common intention in establishing vicarious liability.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on March 10, 1997, in Village-Chhitmakhanpur, Bihar. The first informant, Jagdish Manjhi (PW-4), along with his cousin Narayan Manjhi (PW-5) and his maternal nephew Gholti Yadav (the deceased), were on their way to catch a train. While crossing the railway line, they encountered Maheshwari Yadav (appellant no.1) holding a lathi (stick). The deceased warned PW-4 not to interact with him. Subsequently, Mannu Yadav (appellant no.2) and Paro Yadav (accused no.3) arrived at the scene. Appellant no.2 allegedly exhorted accused no.3 to kill the deceased. Accused no.3 then fired a musket at the deceased, hitting him in the back. Following this, all three accused assaulted PW-4 and PW-5. Villagers arrived at the scene after hearing the commotion, and the accused fled. The prosecution argued that the motive for the crime was an earlier incident where the deceased had intervened when accused no.3 tried to assault another person, Awadhi Yadav, due to a theft of a horse.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted accused no.3, Paro Yadav, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder. The appellants, Maheshwari Yadav and Mannu Yadav, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (murder with common intention) and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention). All the accused appealed to the Patna High Court, which dismissed their appeals on October 7, 2005. Accused no.3 then filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 11, 2006. The present appeal is by the other two accused, Maheshwari Yadav and Mannu Yadav.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at play in this case is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states:

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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 establishes the principle of vicarious liability. It means that if a criminal act is committed by multiple individuals with a shared intention, each individual is responsible for the crime as if they had committed it alone. This provision is often used when it is difficult to determine which specific individual caused the final harm, but it can be proven that they acted together with a common intention. The court also considered Section 302 of the IPC, which defines the punishment for murder.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the only allegation against appellant no.2 was that of exhortation, and there was no allegation against appellant no.1 of assaulting the deceased.
• They contended that there was no evidence of a common intention shared between the appellants and accused no.3. Therefore, they should not have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• The appellants claimed that the motive was not proven, and even if it was, the enmity was between the deceased and accused no.3, not with them.
• They argued that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 were interested witnesses as they were the sons and brother of the deceased, respectively. They also raised doubts about whether PW-4 and PW-5 actually witnessed the incident.
• The appellants pointed out inconsistencies in the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 regarding whether they were going to the railway station or bus stand.
• They argued that the conduct of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 was unnatural as they did not try to save the deceased.
• The appellants also highlighted that two alleged eye-witnesses were not examined, and therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
• They pointed to an eight-hour delay in registering the First Information Report.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Bihar):

• The State argued that since the conviction of accused no.3 had been confirmed by the Supreme Court, no interference should be made with the conviction of the appellants, who were convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
• The State contended that both the Trial Court and the High Court had appreciated the evidence of the eye-witnesses and believed their version.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the lack of direct assault on the deceased by them, coupled with the absence of a proven common intention, should absolve them of liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They also raised doubts on the credibility of the witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. When the main accused, who is the author of the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, was not charged with Section 34 of the IPC, whether the conviction of the appellants can be sustained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the concept of common intention and vicarious liability in criminal acts.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.

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 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to establish the vicarious liability of the appellants. The court noted that the section introduces the concept of vicarious liability and that it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or premeditation to establish common intention. The court also used Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to determine the punishment for the offence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) regarding the presence and actions of the appellants at the crime scene. The Court emphasized that the appellants were not mere bystanders; they were actively involved. The fact that appellant no. 2 exhorted accused no. 3 to kill the deceased was a critical factor in establishing their shared intention. The Court also noted that the appellants were carrying sticks, indicating their readiness to participate in the crime. The Court also highlighted that the main accused was not charged with Section 34 of the IPC, but it was not necessary to charge the main accused with Section 34 of the IPC to convict the other accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, if common intention could be established. The Court also did not find any merit in the argument that the witnesses were interested witnesses and that there was a delay in filing the FIR.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the witnesses were interested witnesses, but it rejected that argument. The court also considered the argument that there was a delay in filing the FIR, but it rejected that argument as well. The court found the testimonies of the witnesses to be of sterling quality and that the witnesses were consistent in their version of the events. The court also found that the appellants were acting in concert with the main accused and that there was time available for the meeting of minds.

The court stated, “To bring a case within Section 34, it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or pre-meditation. It is possible to form a common intention just before or during the occurrence.”

The court further stated, “When the evidence of the eye-witnesses is of sterling quality, an adverse inference need not be drawn. Quality is more important than quantity.”

The court also noted, “The appellants were together and were in the company of the accused no.3. Obviously, they acted in concert. The appellants were carrying lathi, and the accused no.3, was moving with a musket. There was time available for the meeting of minds. Thus, the existence of common intention will have to be accepted.”

The Court did not find any merit in the case and dismissed the appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: Mere presence at a crime scene is not sufficient for conviction under Section 34 of the IPC. There must be evidence of a shared intention to commit the crime.
• Vicarious Liability: Section 34 of the IPC introduces the concept of vicarious liability. If a criminal act is committed by multiple individuals with a shared intention, each individual is responsible for the crime as if they had committed it alone.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The testimony of close relatives can be credible if it is of sterling quality. The quality of the evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses.
• Formation of Common Intention: Common intention can be formed just before or during the occurrence of the crime.
• Exhortation: Exhorting someone to commit a crime can be evidence of a common intention.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to surrender before the Trial Court within one month to undergo the remaining sentence. The Court also directed the State Government to consider the case of the appellants for a grant of permanent remission as per the applicable policy.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or premeditation. A common intention can be formed just before or during the occurrence of the crime. The court also reiterated that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, Maheshwari Yadav and Mannu Yadav, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found that the appellants shared a common intention to commit the crime, even though they did not directly inflict the fatal injury. The judgment emphasizes the importance of common intention in establishing vicarious liability and reinforces the principle that individuals who act together with a shared criminal intent are equally responsible for the crime.