KOMAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 1142 
A 
KOMAL 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 304 (Part I) rlw s.34 -Accused alongwith co-accused 
charged for murder and for causing injuries to others -
Conviction of accused u/s 323 by trial court - High Court 
altering the conviction to one u/s. 304 (Part I) rlw s. 34 finding 
D that he assaulted the deceased - On appeal, held: High Court 
wrongly altered the conviction - it was nobody's case that the 
accused assaulted the deceased - Courts below having held 
that the accused was not a member of unlawful assembly and 
there was no common object, could not have been convicted 
E u/s. 304 (Part I) rlw s. 34 - Conviction by trial court restored. 
s. 34 - Common object - Scope and applicability of -
Discussed. 
Appellant-accused was tried along with seven co-
accused for causing death of one person and injuries to 
l 
F 
others. Trial court convicted him uls. 323 IPC for his 
individual act and acquitted him of other charges. High 
Court, convicted the appellant uls. 304 (Part I ) rlw s. 34 
IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court has erroneously come to the 
conclusion about the role of appellant. It was erroneously 
held that the appellant had caused injury on the person 
H 
1142 
KOMAL v. STATE OF M.P. 
1143 
of the deceased. It was nobody's case. It has been 
A 
categorically held by both the trial court and the High 
Court that there was no common object and in any event 
the appellant was not a member of any unlawful 
assembly. Having held so, the High Court ought not to 
have altered the conviction as recorded by the trial court. 
B 
The order of the trial court vis-a-vis the present appellant 
is restored and that of the High Court vis-a-vis the present 
appellant stands quashed. [Pa_ras 6 and 9) [1148-B; 1149-
E-G] 
2.1 Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of C 
joint liability in the commission 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. The liability of 
one person for an offence committed by another in the 
D 
course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons 
arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in 
furtherance of a common intention of the persons who 
join in committing the crime. (Para 7] (1148-C-D] 
2.2. 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 proved circumstances. 
E 
In order to bring home the charge of common intention, 
F 
the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether 
direct or circumstantial, 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, be 
it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must G 
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. [Para 
7] (1148-D-F] 
2.3. 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 H 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part 
was taken by each of them. Section 34 is applicable even 
if no injury has been caused by the particular accused 
himself. For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to 
show some overt act on the part of the accused. [Paras 
B 8) [1149-C-D] 
c 
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109 and 
Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 
1993 SC 1899, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1977 SC 109 
AIR 1993 SC 1899 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
Para 8 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
E 
F 
No. 243 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12007 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 
245 of 1993. 
Suryanarayana Singh & Pragati Neekhra for the Appellant. 
Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben AO and Vibha Datta Makhija 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
G Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur allowing 
the appeal filed by the State of M .P. upholding t

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