KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 16-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 433
433
KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 34 – Murder – Common
intention – Three accused – Conviction of appellants-accused (K,
T, G) for murder of victim-deceased u/s. 302 r/w s.34 and for offences
u/ss.447, 504, 506, 341 – Division Bench of High Court affirmed
their conviction – Hence instant appeal – Held: The assault on
victim-deceased by appellant-K was fearsome, brutal and cruel –
He had pinned down and tromped the deceased using his legs and
hands fracturing four ribs, contusing and injuring the spinal cord,
the chest and neck of the deceased – The injuries were sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death – Since the death of the
victim-deceased was homicidal as a result and direct consequence
of the injuries inflicted by appellant-K, he was rightly convicted
under the aforesaid sections including s.302 – As regards, appellant-
T and appellant-G, their acts cannot be primarily connected with
the violence perpetuated by appellant-K – Appellants-T and G had
not assaulted the deceased after he had fallen down and were not
responsible for the injuries suffered by the deceased resulting in
his death – The assault by appellant-K and the result outcome were
unexpected to them – Appellants-T and G are entitled to the benefit
of doubt on the ground that it cannot be with certainty held that
they had common intention – Therefore, they cannot be held guilty
u/s.300 or even s.299 IPC – Their conviction is converted to u/
s.323 r/w s.34, however their conviction for individual offences u/
ss.447, 504, 506 and 341 is sustained.
Penal Code, 1860: s.34 – Applicability of – Common intention
– To attract applicability of s.34, the prosecution is under an
obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before
a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another
– The ultimate act should be done in furtherance of common intention
– Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan, which can be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
even formed at the spur of the moment or simultaneously just before
or even during the attack – For proving common intention, the
prosecution can rely upon direct proof of prior concert or
circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference – However,
incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable
hypothesis.
Penal Code, 1860: s.34 – Common intention – Principles –
For s.34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre-
arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal
act is performed – Common intention can be formed just a minute
before the actual act happens – Common intention is necessarily a
psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds – In such
cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most
cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be
determined by drawing inference from the facts proved – This requires
an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co-participants or
perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence – The manner in
which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of
injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-
assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence
or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to
be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients
of s.34 are satisfied.
Penal Code, 1860: s.34 – Liability of co-perpetrator – A co-
perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to
the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the
possibility or probability of the final act – If the final outcome or
offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the
common intention, he would not be liable – This test obviously is
fact and circumstance specific and no strait jacket universal formula
can be applied – s.34 makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated
in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability – For
s.34 to apply, there should be common intention between the co-
perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose
and common design or pre-arranged plan.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:

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