MUNNILAL S/O GOKUL TELI versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 20-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 393 
"' 
~ 
MUNNILAL S/O GOKUL TELi 
A 
V. 
""" 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2009) 
JANUARY 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
' • 
Parial Code, 1860 : 
-
c 
' 
s. 302134 - Murder- By four accused - Two accused 
armed with deadly weapons, while the other two unarmed -
Conviction of all the accused u/s. 302134 - Appellant-accused 
was unarmed - Allegation against him that he pulled the leg 
of the deceased - High Court dismissing his appeal - On D 
~. 
appeal, held: Mere fact of being in company of armed 
accused, not sufficient to attract s. 34 - Eye-witnesses not 
attributing any overt act to the unarmed accused - Allegation 
of puffing the leg of the deceased also not established. 
s. 34 - Common intention - Applicability of - Discussed. 
E 
Appellant-accused was alleged to have participated 
- in the act of causing death of a person alongwith three 
" 
co-accused. Though he was not armed, allegation against 
, 
him was that he had pulled the leg of the deceased. Trial F 
Court convicted him, alongwith the co-accused uls. 
302134 IPC. High Court affirmed his conviction negating 
the plea that s. 34 was not applicable in the case of the 
appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
-. .... 
HELD: 1. In the peculiar facts of the case, the 
appellant cannot be held guilty by application of Section 
. 
34 IPC. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any 
393 
H 
. 
' 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A overt act to the appellant. The mere fact that he was in 
the company of the accused who were armed would not 
be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC. It is undisputed that 
appellant was not armed and he had no animosity with 
the deceased. This position is also accepted by the 
B prosecution. Additionally, the stand that he pulled the leg 
of the deceased has not been established. [Paras 10 and 
9] [399-B; 398-G-H; 399-A] 
2.1. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of 
joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is 
C 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 course 
of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises u/ 
D s. 34, if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a 
common intention of the persons who join in committing 
the crime. [Para 7] [397-E-F] 
2.2. Direct proof of common intention is seldom 
E available and, therefore, such intention can only be 
inferred from the circumstances appearing from the 
proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. 
In order to bring home the charge of common intention, 
the prosecution has to establish by evidence. Whether 
F direct or circumstantial, 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 
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The 
true contents of the Section are that if two or more 
G 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. [Para 7] [397-F-H; 398-A-B] 
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109, relied 
H on. 
' ....
, ,_ 
MUNNILAL S/O GOKUL TELi v. STATE OF M.P. 
395 
Jt 
2.3 The provision is intended to meet a case in which 
A 
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 prove exactly what part 
was taken by each of them. For applying Section 34 it is 
not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the 
B 
accused. [Para 8] [398-E-F] 
Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 
1993 SC 1899, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
AIR 1977 SC 109 
Relied on 
Para 7 
AIR 1993 SC 1899 
Relied on 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
D 
"" 
No. 106 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6. 7.2006 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 639 
of 1993. 
E 
Mulkh Raj Vij (AC.) for the Appellant. 
Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben and Vibha Datta Makhija for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of

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