NANAK CHAND versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1201 · Decided: 25-01-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
~ 
I 
-
( 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1201 
Achhar Singh(1), The first three cases are of no assist-
ance to him although the second and third relate to 
Brahmins of Gurdaspur, 
for the 
properties in dispute 
in those cases were ancestral and the respondent does 
not now 
dispute the appellant's 
right 
to succeed to 
her father's 
ancestral 
properties. 
These 
cases, there-
fore, do not throw any light on the present case which 
is concerned 
with the question 
of succession 
to self-
acquired 
property. 
Further, 
in the 
last 
case, 
the 
collaterals were beyond the fourth degree 
and it was 
enough for the 
Court to say that irrespective 
of whe-
ther the 
properties in dispute were ancestral 
or self-
acquired the collaterals in that case could not succeed. 
It is also to be noted that the earlier decisions were 
not cited or considered in that case. 
In our opinion the appellant has failed to discharge 
the onus that was initially on him and that being the 
position no burden was cast on the respondent 
which 
she need have discharged 
by adducing 
evidence 
of 
particular 
instances. 
In these 
circumstances, 
the 
general 
custom 
recorded 
in Rattigan's 
book 
must 
prevail and the decision of the High Court must be up-
held. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
NANAK CHAND 
fl. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. 
[S. R. DAs, BHAGWATI and 
SYED JAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 34---Merely explana-
tory-No offence created thereby-Ss. 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal 
Code-Distinction between the two-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 
V of 1898), s. 233-Charge under s. 302 1·ead with s. 149, Indian 
Penal Code-No speci'fic charge under s. 302, Indian Penal Code as 
required by s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-Conviction 
under s. 302-Legality thereof. 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is merely explanatory. 
It 
does not create any specific offence. 
Under this section several per-
sons must be actuated by a common intention and when in further-
(1) A.LR. 1936 Lah. 68. 
1955 
Mahant Salig Ram 
v. 
Musammal Ml!)'a 
Devi 
Das]. 
1955 
January 25 
•955 
Nanak Chand 
v. 
Tht State of 
Punjab 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1955] 
f 
y~ 
ance o that common intention a criminal act is done by them, -each 
of them is liable for that act as if the act had been done by him alone. 
There is a clear distinction between the provisions of s. '14 and 
s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the two sections are not to be 
confused. The principal element in s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code 
is the common intention to con1mit a crime. 
In furtherance of the 
common intention several acts may be done by several persons result-
ing ~n the commission of that crime. 
I~ such 
a situat~on 
~· 
34 !"'~y~ 
provides that each one of them would be liable for that crime in the 
· 
same manner as if all the acts resulting in that cri1ne had been done 
::; 
by him alone. There is no question of con1mon intention in s. 149 
of the Indian Penal Code. 
An offence 1nay be committed by 
a 
member -of an unlawful assembly and the other members will· be 
liable for that offence although there was no common intention bet-
~veen that person and the other members of the unlawful assembly 
to con1mit that offence provided the conditions laid down in the sec-
tion are fulfilled. Thus if the offence committed by that person is 
in 
prosecution of the co1nmon 
object of the unlawful assembly or 
~ 
such as the members of that asse1nbly knew to be likely to be 
committed in prosecution of the common object, .every member of 
the unlawful assen1bly \Vould be guilty of that offence, although. 
there may have been no comman intention and no participation by 
the other members in the actual con1mission of that offence. 
There is a difference between object and intention, for although 
the object may be common, the intentions of the several members of 
the unlawful assembly may differ and indeed may be similar only in 
one respect namely that they are all unlawful, while the element of 
,_,y. 
participation in action, which is the leading feature of s. 34, is re-
placed in s. 
149 by membership of the assembly at the time of the 
co1n1nitting of the offence. 
A charge for a substantive offence under section 302, or section 
-
325 cf the Indian Penal Code, etc. is 
for a 
distinct and separate 
,..
offence from that under section 302, read with section 149 or section 
325, read with section 149, ·etc. 
A perso

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