RAMASWAMI AYYANGAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 24-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
876 
RAMASWAMI AYYANGAR AND ORS. 
"· 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
March 24, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J. 
Indian Penal Code, S. 34, essence of-Application- of S. 34, whether physicai 
presence and actual participation necessary in 
offences 
involving 
physical 
vidlenc,e. 
Previous enmity between the appellant Ramaswami Ayyangar and the deceas-
ed Kaliapen1rnal resulted in ah occurrence, in which Kaliaperumal got seriously 
injured and died in the hospital. 
Various charges were framed against the six 
accused, including those of murder and rioting. The Trial Judge acquitted 
three of the accused persons, convicted two under S. 302 I.P.C. and one under 
s. 324. 
Cross-appeals were preferred in the High Court; one by the three accused 
against their convictions, and another by the State, against the acquittals. The 
High Court convicted all the six accused of the offence of rioting, A-2 to A-6 
under S. 302 read with S. 34. A-I under Ss. 302/149 and 3021109, and A-2 
under S. 324. 
It was contended before this Court that. on the facts of the 
case, the High Court was not justified in interlering with the acquittal of A-1. 
A-5 and A-6, and that A-2 who did not physically _participate in the fatal 
beating of the deceased, could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of 
others, and that S. 34 was not applicable to him. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
" 
I 
HELD : ( 1) In the case of an offence involving physical violence. it is 
essential for the application of S. 34 that the person who inStigates or aids the 
commission of the crime must be physically present at the actual commission 
of the crime for the purpose of facilitating or promoting the offence, the com-
~ 
mission of which is the aim of the joint c:r.irninal \"eDture. [881 C-D] 
(2) The "act" spoken of in S. 34 includes a series of act9 as a single act. 
It follows that the words "when a criminal act is done by several persons" in 
S. 34, may be construed to mean "when criminal acts are done by several 
persons". The acts committed by different confederates in the criminal action 
may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage 
in the criminal enterprise. 
Such presence of those who in one way or the 
other facilitate the execution of the common design, is itself tantamount to 
actual participation ih the 'criminal act'. [881 A-B & D] 
(3) The essence of S. 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons 
participating in the 'criminal action' to bring about a particular result. Such 
sonsensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by 
all 
of 
them .. [881 D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminar Appeal No. 251 
of 1972 and 243 of 1973. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 
22-9-72 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 369 /72 
and 976/71. 
Debaratea Mookerjee, M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan for 
the Appellants. 
A. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashni, for the Respondents. 
' • 
j 
RAMASWAMI v. TAMIL NADU ( Untwalia, !.) 
877 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWAL!A, J. Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1972 has been filed 
under section 2 of the Supreme Court 
(Enlargement of Criminal 
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and Crimlllal Appeal No. 243 of 
1973 is by special leave. 
In all there are six appellants. 
lt would 
be convenient to refer to them with reference to their accused number 
given in the judgment of the Sessions Court. 
They are as follows : 
Accused No. I (A-1)-Ramaswami Ayyangar. 
Accused No. 2 (A-2)-Vattappan . 
. Accused No. 3 (A-3)-Kaipillai alias Karuppayyan. 
Accused No. 4 (A-4)-Raman. 
Accused No. 5 (A-5)-Katbayyan. 
Accused No. 6 (A-6)-Kulandaiyan. 
A 
B 
c 
1 
The occurrence giving rise to these two appeals took place on 
Monday the 21st April, 1971 at about 4.00 p.m. at Sivan Koil tank 
in village Thadulhalkondapuram. In the said occurrence was serious-
ly injured one Kaliaperumal who later died in the Hospital at about 
9.00 p.m. the same evening. 
Another person injured in the occur-
D 
rencc 
was 
also 
named 
Kaliaperumal, P.W. 1. 
The prosecution 
case is that deceased Kaliaperumal was living with his 
matcrna·l 
uncle Pichai Konar, P.W. 7 since infancy. 
A-1 is the Karnam of 
the village and A-6 is the Government vetti. A-2 and A-3 are brothers, 
A-4, A-5 and A-6 are also inter-se brothers. A-2 to A-6 worked 
under A-1. 
There was enmity between P.W. 7 and the deceased on 
the o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.