GOUDAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 11-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 547 
GOUDAPPA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2007) 
MARCH 11, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND 
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34, 143 and 148 - Murder 
- Of husband, by the wife's father and uncles - Five accused 
- Conviction of accused nos. 3, 4 & 5 (appellants) u/s.302 rl C 
w s.34 - Justification - Held: Justified - Deceased was done 
to death in furtherance of common intention - The fact that 
accused nos.3 and 4 held the deceased and facilitated 
accused no. 5 to give the fatal blow and made no effort to 
prevent him from assaulting the deceased leads to the 
D 
irresistible and inescapable conclusion that accused nos. 3 
and 4 shared the common intention with accused no. 5 -
Intention of accused no.5 clear from the nature of weapon 
used (jambia) and the severity of attack which was in the area 
of chest penetrating deep inside up to heart and liver which 
E 
caused the death of the deceased. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 34 - Scope of - Common intention 
- Held: s.34 /PC lays down a principle of joint liability in the 
doing of a criminal act - The common intention is gathered 
from the manner in which the crime has been committed, the 
conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, 
F 
the determination and concern with which the crime was 
committed, the weapon carried by the accused and from t/le 
nature and injury caused by one or some of them - For 
. arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had the common 
G 
intention to commit an offence of which they could be 
convicted, the totality of circumstances must be taken into 
consideration. 
547 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The relations between the deceased-husband and 
his wife were strained. The prosecution case was that the 
wife's father (accused no.1) and uncles (four other 
accused) murdered the husband in furtherance of 
common intention. The five accused allegedly entered 
B the house of the deceased, abused and threatened them 
of dire consequences; whereafter accused nos.3 and 4 
caught hold of the deceased's hands while accused no. 
5 gave jambia blow on his chest. Further allegation was 
that the accused no.1 pelted stone over the door of the 
c house whereas accused no. 2 damaged its front door 
with an axe. 
The trial court acquitted accused nos.1 and 2 but 
convicted the other three accused (i.e. the appellants). 
While accused nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 
D 304, Part II read with Section 109 of the IPC, accused no.5 
was convicted under Section 304, Part II of IPC. The High 
Court, however, held all the accused guilty under Section 
143 and 148 of IPC, and further convicted the appellants 
under Section 302/34 of IPC as well, and therefore the 
E instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The house in question is a small house 
F and the distance between the place where PWs 1, 2and 
3 were watching TV and the place of occurrence is about 
20 ft. Further, there was an alarm raised by the deceased 
which attracted the witnesses (PWs1, 2 and 3) and, thus 
their claim of being eye-witnesses of the occurrence 
G cannot be rejected. [Para 12] [556-G-H] 
H 
1.2. It is the consistent evidence of the prosecution 
witnesses that the deceased was chewing paan and 
came out of the house to spit when accused no.1 abused 
him alleging that he failed to keep his daughter 
GOUDAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
549 
whereupon all the accused persons entered the house 
A 
and the crime was committed. As the dead body was 
found 7 ft. inside the front door, there is no inconsistency 
in regard to the place of occurrence. [Para 13) [557-D-E] 
2.1. Ordinarily, every man is responsible criminally 
for a criminal act done by him. No man can be held 
responsible for an independent act and wrong committed 
B 
by another. The principle of criminal liability is that the 
person who commits an offence is responsible for that 
and he can only be held guilty. However, Section 34 of C 
the Indian Penal Code makes an exception to this 
principle. It lays down a principle of joint liability in the 
doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to 
be found in the existence of common intention, animating 
the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in 
furtherance of such intention. It deals with the doing of D 
separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if 
all are done in furtherance of common intenti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.