LexBALU @ BALA SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. versus STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2015] 11 S.C.R. 708 BALU@BALASUBRAMANIAM &ANR. v. STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY) (Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2007) OCTOBER 16,2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: ss.325, 326 and 324- Conviction by trial courl, of the appellants-accused alongwith 3 other accused u/ss. 3021149 and 148 - For killing one person and for causing injuries to the eye-witnesses- High Courl acquitted accused No.3 while 0 altering conviction of other accused to one under ss.302134, 326134 and 324134 - On appeal, held: In view of the consistent version of eye-witnesses, the finding of the courls below that the accused were the assailants, cannot be faulted - However, in the facts of the case, High Courl was not right E in invoking s.34 /PC as the facts do not give rise to an inference of pre-concerl - The acts of the accused are random individual acts done without meeting of minds - Therefore, the appellants-accused can be held liable only for their individual acts - Conviction u/s.302134 is modified F as u/s.325 ~Convictions u/ss.324134 and 326134 is liable to be set aside. s.34 - Common intention - Applicability of - Held: Essence of liability u/s.34 is simultaneous conscious minds G of persons parlicipating in criminal acts to bring about a parlicular result- Sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overl act is established qua each of the accused. s. 34 - Common intention - Proof of - Held: Common H intention is seldom capable of direct proof- It is to be inferred 708 BALU@ BALASUBRAMANIAM v. STATE (UT OF 709 PONDICHERRY) from proved circumstances relating to the entire conduct of A all the persons and not only from the individual act actually performed- Such inference is to be drawn from the manner of origin of the occurrence; how the accused arrived at tfle scene; the concert with which attack was made; and from the injuries caused by one or some of them - The act actually B committed would be one of the important facts, but not the . sole factor -A pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary tO be proved. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. Consistent version of PWs 1 and 5 (eye- witnesses) establish presence of the appellants and that they attacked the deceased with sticks. These facts are also substantiated by the evidence of injured witness D PW2. Findings recorded by the courts below that the appellants attacked the deceased with sticks, is unassailable. [Para 8] [716-C] 2.1 To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established· E that the criminal act was done by more than·one person in' furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime and.(ii) the crime was actually committed F by them in furtherance of that common intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is simultaneous · conscious mfnd of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Minds regarding the sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an G overt act is established qua each of the accused . . Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Common intention is an intention to commit the crime actually. committed and each accused person can be convicted H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A of that crime, only if he has participated in that common intention. [Para 10] [716-F-H; 717-A] Mahbub Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118; Shanker/al Kacharabhai and Others vs. State of B · Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1260 : 1965 SCR 287; Ramesh Singh alias photti v. State of A.P. (2004) 11 sec 305 - relied on. 2.2 Common intention is seldom capable of direct proof, it is almost invariably to be inferred from proved C circumstances relating to the entire conduct of all the persons and not only from the individual act actually performed. The inference to be drawn from the manner of the origin of the occurrence, the manner in which the 0 accused arrived at the scene and the concert with. which attack was made and from the injuries caused by one or some of them. The criminal act actually committed would certainly be one of the important factor to be taken into consideration but should not be taken to be the sole E factor. [Para 13] [79-C-D] 2.3 Under Section 34 IPC, a pre-concert in the sense of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.