RAGHBIR CHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 05-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 744 
RAGHBIR CHAND & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2028 of 2009) 
AUGUST 05, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.J 
Penal Code, 1860: 
C 
ss. 302, 324 and 323 rlw. s. 34 - Prosecution under - Of 
4 accused - 3 injured eye-witnesses to the incident -
Conviction by courts below -
On appeal, held: The 
prosecution case is established by the evidence of injured 
eye-witnesses which was corroborated by medical evidence 
- Conviction of all the accused ulss. 324 and 323 r/w. s. 34 
D is affirmed - But as regards conviction uls. 302134, in the facts 
of the case, accused No.4 alone can be held responsible for 
the death of the deceased and not accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 
- Hence, conviction of accused No. 4 u/s. 302 is affirmed and 
conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is set aside. 
E 
s. 34 - Liability under - Invocation of - Held: Liability ul 
s. 34 is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and 
circumstances of each case. 
F 
Appellants-accused (accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4) were 
charged u/ss. 302, 324 and 323 r/w. s. 34 IPC. The 
prosecution case was that the accused assaulted PWs 
2 and 4 (brothers) and when during the assault, their 
brothers (PW 5 and the deceased) came to their rescue, 
they were also assaulted. The deceased, the eye-
G witnesses (PWs 2, 4 and 5) as well as the accused Nos. 
1, 2 and 3 were medically examined. The trial court 
convicted the accused u/ss. 302, 324 and 323 r/w. s. 34 
IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the 
H 
744 
RAGHBIR CHAND v STATE OF PUNJAB 
745 
offence u/s. 302 and for 2 years and 1 year RI for the 
A 
offences u/ss. 324 and 323 respectively. High Court 
confirmed their conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5, i.e. the 
injured eye-witnesses, appear to be consistent and have 
remained largely unshaken in cross-examination. The 
aforesaid 3 witnesses have clearly and categorically 
narrated the sequence of events alleged by the 
prosecution and the assault committed by the accused 
C 
persons on them as well as on the deceased with the 
weapons that they were armed with. The evidence of 
PWs 2, 4 and 5 stands fully corroborated by the evidence 
of PW-1 who found as many as 4 punctured injuries in 
the abdomen of the deceased and also lacerated and 
D 
incised injuries on PWs 2, 4 and 5. Taking into account 
the consistency in the version of the injured witnesses 
and the corroboration of their testimonies by the medical 
evidence of PW-1, it can be safely held that the incident 
as narrated by the prosecution had taken place and the 
involvement of the accused persons, as alleged, have 
been duly proved. [Para 4) [750-D-G] 
2. Common intention which is the gist of the principle 
E 
F 
of vicarious liability enshrined by Section 34 of the Penal 
Code can be the result of a premeditated decision 
between several co-accused or in a given case such 
common intention can very well develop on the spur of 
the moment or at the scene of the crime. What is of 
importance and, therefore, must be ascertained is the 
meeting of minds of the co-accused that the particular G 
criminal act should be committed. Once the court can 
consider it safe to come to such a conclusion only then 
apportionment of liability amongst the co-accused would 
be permissible with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal 
Code. Liability of an accused under Section 34, therefore, 
H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and 
circumstances of each case. [Para 8] [752-D-F] 
Sripathi vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC 660: 2009 
(5) SCR 309; Abdul Mannan vs. State of Assam (2010) 3 
B SCC 381: 2010 (2) SCR 1030; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of 
M.P. (2010) 10 sec 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311- relied on. 
3. The facts of the case cannot constitute a safe and 
sufficient basis to come to the conclusion that an 
inference of common intention of all the four accused to 
C cause the death of the deceased can be safely made so 
as to hold the accused 1, 2 and 3 vicariously liable for the . 
death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the 
accused-appellants 1, 2 and 3 under Section 302 read 
with section 34 requires interference. Accordingly, the 
D said conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-
appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 is set aside. However, the 
evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5 having established the assault 
o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.