Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 302 Read with Section 34 IPC: Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P. (1 December 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 1 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1037

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P., focusing on whether the appellant shared a common intention with other accused individuals to commit the crime. The Court examined the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. This judgment clarifies the scope of “common intention” in criminal law and its implications for those involved in group offenses. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident that occurred on 18 October 1982, at approximately 5:30 a.m. near Babulal’s Dhaba in District Varanasi. Balram, the complainant, and his brother, Ram Kishore, were on their way to attend nature’s call when they were confronted by four individuals: Virender, armed with an iron rod; and Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh, each holding lathis. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Balram, these four individuals emerged from the Dhaba and shouted to kill Ram Kishore. Despite Balram and Ram Kishore’s calls for help, the four men surrounded Ram Kishore and brutally assaulted him with lathis and an iron rod, resulting in his death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found all four accused guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The appellant, Ram Naresh, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court limited its review to the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC, specifically focusing on whether Ram Naresh shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 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 provision establishes the principle of joint criminal liability. It means that if multiple individuals commit a crime with a shared intention, each person is responsible for the entire act as if they had committed it alone. The court emphasized that to apply Section 34 of the IPC, it is crucial to establish that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. This common intention does not require a prior conspiracy or premeditated plan and can be formed even during the course of the incident.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court did not present any evidence to establish a “common intention” on the part of Ram Naresh.
• It was further argued that the High Court also failed to discuss the evidence regarding the “common intention” of the appellant.
• The appellant contended that without proof of common intention, Section 34 of the IPC could not be applied to convict him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the FIR and the eyewitness testimony of Balram (PW-1) clearly indicated that all four accused persons were armed and acted together to assault Ram Kishore.
• The State emphasized that Rajaram instigated the others to kill Ram Kishore, and all four accused surrounded and assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons.
• The State contended that the trial court and the High Court correctly concluded that the collective action of the accused demonstrated a shared common intention to commit the murder.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The sole issue for consideration by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant shared a common intention along with other co-accused to kill the deceased Ram Kishore, thereby making Section 34 of the IPC applicable.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 34, Indian Penal Code to evaluate whether the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused.
• The Court relied on Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka [2022] 7 SCC 521 to emphasize that common intention can be formed even a minute before the act and that direct evidence is not always available, requiring inferences from the facts.
• The Court distinguished Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs. State of Punjab [2022] 2 SCC 545, stating that the appellant had not only the intention but also actively participated in the assault.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Collective Action: The fact that all four accused came together, armed with weapons, and simultaneously attacked Ram Kishore was a significant factor.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The consistent testimony of Balram (PW-1) that all the accused surrounded and assaulted Ram Kishore together was crucial.
• Instigation: Rajaram’s instigation to kill Ram Kishore indicated a shared intent among the accused.
• Common Intention: The court emphasized that common intention does not require a prior conspiracy and can be formed even during the incident.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning followed a logical progression:

The court considered the argument that there was no direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. However, it rejected this argument, relying on the principle that common intention can be formed on the spot. The court also rejected the argument that the appellant did not actively participate, citing the evidence that he was armed and actively involved in the assault.

The court stated:

“The collective action of all the accused persons indicated sharing of common intention.”

“Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.”

“…the appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and giving blows to the deceased Ram Kishore together with the other accused persons.”

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be applied even if there is no prior conspiracy or premeditated plan. Common intention can be formed on the spot.
• Joint Liability: Individuals who participate in a crime with a common intention are equally liable, even if they do not directly commit the main act.
• Evidence: Collective action, eyewitness testimony, and the manner of the attack can be used to infer common intention.
• Active Participation: It is essential to show that the accused not only had the intention but also actively participated in the crime.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to apply, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident. This judgment reinforces the principle of joint criminal liability and clarifies that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Ram Naresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the evidence clearly established that Ram Naresh shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the murder of Ram Kishore. The judgment underscores the significance of collective action and shared intent in determining joint criminal liability.