LexMANIK DAS AND ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANIK DAS AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF ASSAM
MAY 31, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
ss.302134-Murder-Joint liability-Trial court convicting ftve accused C
of the charge-High Court affirming conviction and life sentence-Held:
Essence of the liability is to be found in exercise of a common intention
animating the accused leading to doing of a criminal act in furtherance of
such intention-s.34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by a
·· particular accused himself-On facts, injuries found on post-mortem report
correspond to version given by eye-witnesses-Two eye witnesses categorically D
named four accused-One of them further named the fifth accused specifically-
It cannot be said that prosecution has failed to establish its case.
Appellants faced trial for the offence punishable under ss.302/34 IPC.
The prosecution case was that the five accused assaulted brother of the
complainant as a result of which he died. The trial court convicted the accused E
of the charge and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The High
Court having dismissed the appeals of the accused, they filed the instant
appeals.
It was contended for the appellants that in the instant cases. 34 lPC F
had no application as their presence at the place of occurrence was not
established, and in any event, those persons whose names did not figure in
the FIR should not have been convicted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Section 34 IPC has b<en enacted on the principle of joint
liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence
and does not create a substantive office. In order to bring home the charge of
common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct
863
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 7 S.C.R.
A or circumstantial, that there was a 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
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. f Para 711866-E, F, GI
B
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) SC 109, relied on.
1.2. Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to
be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading
to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of
the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the
C accused is liable for the act which caused 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 ali or
to prove exactly that part was taken by each of them. Section 34 is applicable
even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himse.lf. For
D applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of
tbe deceased. (Para ll f (867-D, E, F, GI
E
Ch.Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC
1899, relied on.
1.3. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the injuries found on post
mortem report correspond to the version given by the eye witnesses. Both
PWs 3 and 7 categorically named four persons. In addition PW 3 has named
the fifth accused. Though PW 7 has not named the fifth accused person
specifically, but he has stated about the presence of another accused. In that
F background it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish its
. accusations. Both the trial court and the High Court have analysed the
evidence in great detail and found the same to be clear and cogent.
G
H
fPara 11 and 121 (867-G; 868-Af
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1254 of2006.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2006 of the High Court
of Assam at Guwahati in Crl. Appeal No. 246 of 2004.
Raj Shekhar Rao and Senthil Jagadeesan for the Appellants.
' ..
MANIKDASv. STATE OF ASSAM{PASAYAT, J.]
865
Avijit Roy (for Corporate Law Group) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the appeal filed
A
by the appellants. The appeaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.