Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Water Dispute Case: Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 183
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a fight over water lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, where a dispute over access to a common well escalated into a fatal stabbing. The court examined whether the accused shared a common intention to commit murder, thereby upholding the conviction of one of the accused.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment. This case delves into the complexities of establishing “common intention” under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a criminal act. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for determining when multiple individuals can be held liable for a crime committed by one of them.

Case Background

On October 21, 2010, a dispute arose at Bazar Pati Chowk when the complainant, Kalekhan, refused to allow the accused to take excess water from a common well. The accused, Nasibkha, Asifkha, Jabbarkha, and Ansarkha, were involved in the altercation. Initially, Nasibkha assaulted Kalekhan. When Kalekhan’s brother, Sardarkha, intervened, Nasibkha and Asifkha left the scene on a motorcycle, only to return shortly thereafter.

Upon their return, Nasibkha challenged Sardarkha and then stabbed him with a knife on his right rib, while Asifkha held Sardarkha by the neck. Jabbarkha and Ansarkha punched Kalekhan. Sardarkha was immediately taken to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad, where he was declared dead.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the same day, and all the accused were arrested on October 22, 2010. Nasibkha provided a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of the murder weapon.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found Nasibkha and Asif Khan guilty under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to 10 years imprisonment. However, they were acquitted of charges under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted of all charges. The trial court reasoned that there was no evidence of a pre-arranged plan to commit the murder.

The High Court overturned the trial court’s decision, convicting Nasibkha and Asif Khan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court concluded that the accused had returned with a deadly weapon after a brief interval, indicating premeditation and a common intention to commit murder. The High Court upheld the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts: Part I deals with cases where there is an intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, and Part II deals with cases where there is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or bodily injury.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of 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 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved.

The application of Section 34 of the IPC is central to this case. It requires establishing a “common intention,” which implies a pre-arranged plan among the accused to commit the crime. This section allows for the vicarious liability of each person involved in the criminal act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Asif Khan):

• The incident occurred due to a sudden fight and there was no intention to kill the deceased. The conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, as held by the trial court.
• In the First Information Report (FIR), the appellant was accused of holding the hands of the deceased, whereas, in court, it was stated that he held the neck. This discrepancy raises doubt about the prosecution’s case.
• There is no evidence of a pre-planned murder, hence, Section 34 of the IPC cannot be applied.
• The appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Rai vs. State of Punjab, (1981) 4 SCC 245, Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 17 SCC 438 and Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 796.

State’s Arguments:

• The High Court correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the initial altercation, the accused returned with a deadly weapon, demonstrating a clear intention to kill.
• The appellant held the neck of the deceased while the other accused stabbed him, indicating a common intention to commit the crime.
• The present case is not one for conviction under Section 304 Part II, as the accused returned with a deadly weapon with the intention to kill.
• All the eye-witnesses have proved the prosecution case.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in highlighting the discrepancy between the FIR and the witness testimonies regarding the appellant’s role, and relying on judgments where the courts had held that the cases fell under Section 304 Part II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant should be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
2. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

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 Mehbub Shah vs. Emperor [CITATION], Pandurang and Others vs. State of Hyderabad [CITATION], and Mohan Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab [CITATION] to define common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for a pre-arranged plan.
• The court distinguished Kulwant Rai vs. State of Punjab [CITATION], Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and Another vs. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] and Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab [CITATION], stating that those cases were based on different facts and circumstances, unlike the present case where the accused returned with a weapon.
• The court relied on Narinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab [CITATION], Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Mahrashtra and Another [CITATION] and Murari Thakur and Another vs. State of Bihar [CITATION] to state that it is not material to bring the case under Section 34, as to who inflicted the fatal blow.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Premeditation: The fact that the accused left the scene and returned with a deadly weapon after a brief interval strongly suggested premeditation and intention to kill.
• Common Intention: The coordinated actions of the accused, with one holding the deceased while the other stabbed him, indicated a common intention to commit the murder.
• Nature of Injury: The injury caused by the stabbing was sufficient in the normal course to cause death, as confirmed by the post-mortem report.
• Eye-Witness Testimony: The consistent testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s version of the events.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts, particularly the sequence of events, the actions of the accused, and the nature of the injury. The legal principles of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC were applied to the facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation. However, this interpretation was rejected due to the fact that the accused returned with a deadly weapon, indicating a pre-planned attack and a common intention to commit the murder.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that when individuals act together with a common intention to commit a crime, each is liable for the act as if they had done it alone. The court concluded that the accused had acted in furtherance of a common intention to murder the deceased.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 section does not say ‘the common intentions of all’ nor does it say ‘an intention common to all.’ Under the section, the essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.”

“Common intention denotes action-in-concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan and that must mean a prior meeting of minds.”

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: The judgment reinforces the importance of establishing a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds to prove common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.
• Premeditation: Returning to the scene of the crime with a deadly weapon is a strong indicator of premeditation and intent to kill.
• Liability: Individuals who participate in a criminal act with a common intention can be held equally liable, even if they did not directly cause the fatal injury.
• Impact on future cases: This judgment clarifies the application of Section 34 of the IPC in cases of murder. It highlights that even if the initial altercation was not premeditated, the subsequent actions of the accused can establish a common intention to commit the crime.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when multiple individuals act with a common intention to commit a crime, they can be held equally liable for the act, even if they did not directly cause the fatal injury. The court reiterated that a common intention implies a pre-arranged plan or a prior meeting of minds.

The judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles of Section 34 of the IPC and its application in cases of murder.

Conclusion

In the case of Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, convicting the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the accused had acted with a common intention to commit murder, as evidenced by their coordinated actions and the premeditated nature of the attack. This judgment reinforces the legal principles of common intention and vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Common Intention
• Criminal Law
• Murder
• Vicarious Liability

FAQ

Q: What is common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?

A: Common intention refers to a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds among individuals to commit a criminal act. It means that they acted together with a shared purpose.

Q: Can someone be convicted of murder even if they did not directly cause the fatal injury?

A: Yes, under Section 34 of the IPC, if individuals share a common intention to commit a crime, each can be held liable as if they had done the act alone.

Q: What does premeditation mean in the context of a murder case?

A: Premeditation means that the act was planned beforehand and not committed on the spur of the moment. Returning with a deadly weapon after an altercation can indicate premeditation.

Q: What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?

A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with the punishment for murder, which involves the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. Section 304 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which involves either the intention to cause death or the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for future cases?

A: This judgment clarifies that individuals whoact together with a common intention to commit a crime can be held liable for the act, even if they did not directly cause the fatal injury. It emphasizes that premeditation, such as returning to the scene with a weapon, is a strong indicator of intent to kill.