JANAK SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 19-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JANAK SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
APRIL 19, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, iJJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 rlw Section 34: 
Murder-Trial of accused and his accomplice-Joint liability-Reliance 
C upon testimony of eyewitnesses-Trial Court convicted both the accused jointly 
for offences under Section 302 rlw Section 34 and sentenced them to life 
imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Jn the facts and 
circumstances of the case, Section 34 attracted-Since direct evidence of the 
eyewitness was that the accused committed murder by firing a gun, inconsistency 
between the statement of the witness and the medical opinion relating to 
D distance would be of no significance-No noticeable discrepancy found in the 
evidence of the witnesses-Thus reliable-Since judgments of the Courts below 
are well reasoned supported by ample, concrete and relevant evidence, the 
conviction suffers from no infirmity to warrant interference under Article 136 
of the Constitution of India-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136. 
E 
Section 34-Common intention-Joint liability-8cope of-Discussed 
Father of the deceased bequeathed about 30 bighas of land to each 
of his three sons including the deceased, who was issueless and earlier used 
to reside with accused and later started living with PWI. The Ian~ of the 
F deceased which was earlier being cultivated by the accused came into 
possession of PWl. The deceased also wanted to execute a Will in respect 
of the land owned by him in favour of PWI. In connection thereto, when 
the deceased along with PWl and PW7 was proceeding to Court, the 
accused along with his accomplice armed with deadly weapons resisted 
the deceased from executing the Will in favour of PWl and opened fire 
G upon him. He fell down and died on the spot. Since PWl and PW7 tried 
to save the deceas·ed, they were also fired upon by the accused.· PWl lodged 
first information report. Police investigated the matter and charge-sheeted 
both the accused persons. Trial Court found the evidence of eyewitnesses 
credible and cogent and convicted the accused u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC 
H and sentenced them life imprisonment. On appeal, the judgment was 
378 
JANAK SINGH v.STATE OF U.P. 
379 
affirmed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the accused-appellant that evidence of PWl was 
not credible and cogent; that there was a clearly noticeable inconsistency 
between the evidence of PWl and the medical opinion on the injuries found 
in the body of the deceased; and that Section 34 IPC has no application 
in the present case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Direct evidence of the eyewitness was that the accused 
committed the murder by firing a gun; some inconsistency relating to 
distance based on medical opinion offered would be of no significance C 
whatsoever. (382-E-FJ 
Karnail Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1971) SC 2119, 
relied on. 
1.2. Section 34 IPC has been enacted on the principle of joint liability D 
in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and 
does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section 
is the element of participation in action. Direct proof of common intention 
is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from 
the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the E 
proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common 
intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or 
circumstantia,I that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused 
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of 
Section 34 IPC, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must 
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true contents of F 
the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, 
the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it 
individually by himself. [382-G, H; 383-A-BJ 
1.3. When an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with 
Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which G 
caused the death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by 
him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be 
difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who 
act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to pr

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