JASDEEP SINGH @ JASSU versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 07-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 647
647
JASDEEP SINGH @ JASSU
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2021)
JANUARY 07, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 304 part I and s.34 – Allegation that
victim-deceased was shot dead by the accused persons (A1 to A4)
during the night time – A3 and A4 (appellants) were present at the
scene of occurrence and made a statement saying “what are you
seeing now”, thereafter, A1 took out a gun from his pocket and shot
the deceased – In complaint, father of the deceased (Complainant/
PW6) did not make any statement that A3 and A4 exhorted A1 to
shoot – However, in his additional statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. he
improved his statement stating that A3 and A4 instigated A1 to fire –
Trial Court convicted all the accused persons u/s 304 part I of IPC
by holding that the there was no premeditation and the occurrence
took place in pursuance to sudden fight – The High Court concurred
with the view of the trial Court – Before the Supreme Court, A1 and
A2 did not filed their appeals – Only, A3 and A4 filed appeals –
Held: Though the evidence of PW6 was not rejected, both Courts
found exaggeration on his part – On many occasions PW6 made a
concerted effort to improve the case of prosecution – As far as
statement made by A3 and A4 is concerned, if A3 and A4 had made
such a statement, they should have addressed A2 instead of A1
because A2 was already having a gun and A1 was stated to have
taken his gun out only on the statement made by A3 and A4 – There
is no evidence at all on record to hold that A3 and A4 were aware of
the fact that A1 was having a gun with him – Common intention can
be formed at the time of the occurrence, however, the evidence
available is not sufficient enough to hold that s.34 IPC is attracted
as against A3 and A4 – Prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt as against A3 and A4 taking umbrage u/s.34 IPC
– Therefore, judgment of the High Court confirming judgment of
the trial Court set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 34 – Intendment of – The intendment
of Section 34 IPC is to remove the difficulties in distinguishing the
acts of individual members of a party, acting in furtherance of a
common intention – There has to be a simultaneous conscious mind
of the persons participating in the criminal action of bringing about
a particular result - A common intention qua its existence is a question
of fact and also requires an act “in furtherance of the said intention”
– One need not search for a concrete evidence, as it is for the court
to come to a conclusion on a cumulative assessment – It is only a
rule of evidence and thus does not create any substantive offense.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by
infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence
committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common
intention. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the common
intention to the satisfaction of the court. The quality of evidence
will have to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. When a
part of evidence produced by the prosecution to bring the accused
within the fold of Section 34 IPC is disbelieved, the remaining
part will have to be examined with adequate care and caution, as
the Court is dealing with a case of vicarious liability fastened on
the accused by treating him at par with the one who actually
committed the offence. What is required is the proof of common
intention. Thus, there may be an offence without common
intention, in which case Section 34 IPC does not get attracted.
[Paras 21 & 22][658-C-F]
1.2. The intendment of Section 34 IPC is to remove the
difficulties in distinguishing the acts of individual members of a
party, acting in furtherance of a common intention. There has to
be a simultaneous conscious mind of the persons participating
in the criminal action of bringing about a particular result. A
common intention qua its existence is a question of fact and
also requires an act “in furtherance of the said intention”. One
need not search for a concrete evidence, as it is for the court to
come to a conclusion on a cumulative assessment. It is only a rule
of evidence and thus does not create any substantive offense.
Normally, in an offense committed physically, the presence of an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
accused charged under Section 34 IPC is required, especially in
a case where the a

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