RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 22-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2021)
MARCH 22, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323 and 324 r/w 34 – Murder
consequent to armed assault – Common intention – Vicarious liability
– Three accused – ‘S’ and ‘N’, maternal uncles of PW1 (informant),
were the principal accused – Accused-appellant was their driver –
‘N’ allegedly nursed ill-will against PW1 – PW1 had visited residence
of his maternal grandmother alongwith his friends – ‘S’ and ‘N’,
who were present there, abused PW1 and his friends leading to a
quarrel and scuffle – PW1 and his friends hurriedly left the spot
but stopped near a school – ‘S’ and ‘N’ accompanied by appellant,
came there on a motorcycle and started assaulting PW1 and his
friends – ‘S’ had a danda and ‘N’ had a sickle (darat) – PW1 and
one of his friends received injuries and ran away – The other friend
died – Trial court convicted all the three accused – Conviction
affirmed by High Court – Whether appellant could be said to be
guilty with the aid of s.34 IPC – Held: Ocular testimony in support
of the prosecution was only by way of the testimony of PW1 – PW1
did not attribute any specific overt act to the appellant insofar
assault on the deceased was concerned; nor was the appellant stated
to be armed with any weapon – It was not even the case that the
appellant had exhorted or had facilitated, in any manner, the assault
on the deceased – The only attribution to the appellant was regarding
common or collective act where “three persons got down from the
motorcycle and started assaulting with Danda and fist blows” –
Appellant was also not attributed presence and participation in the
quarrel or scuffle between PW1, and ‘S’ and ‘N’ – No certainty that
the appellant shared the common intention with ‘S’ and ‘N’ to commit
the murder of the deceased or that the appellant had done something
‘in furtherance’ of the common intention of all – Benefit of doubt
granted to appellant and he is absolved of the liability u/s.34 IPC
insofar as the charges u/ss.302 and 324 IPC are concerned – He
is, however, found guilty of the offence punishable u/s.323 r/w s.34
IPC.
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 896
896
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Principle of vicarious liability
under – Outlined.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The principle of vicarious liability under Section
34 of the IPC states, “when a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention of all”, each of
those persons would be liable for ‘that act’ in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone. [Para 13][902-D-E]
1.2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, first and
foremost, the ocular testimony in support of the prosecution is
only by way of the testimony of PW1. That witness did not attribute
any specific overt act to the appellant insofar assault on the
deceased was concerned; nor was the appellant stated to be armed
with any weapon. It was not even the case that the appellant had
exhorted or had facilitated, in any manner, the assault on the
deceased. The only attribution to the appellant was regarding
common or collective act where “three persons got down from
the motorcycle and started assaulting with Danda and fist blows”.
[Para 13][902-E-F]
1.3. Going by the narration of PW1, ‘S’ and ‘N’ had abused
him and his friends at the residence of his maternal uncle leading
to a quarrel and scuffle. The appellant was not attributed presence
and participation in such quarrel or scuffle. [Para 14][902-F-G]
1.4. Having considered the entire material on record, it
cannot be said with certainty that the appellant shared the common
intention with ‘S’ and ‘N’ to commit the murder of the deceased
or that the appellant had done something ‘in furtherance’ of the
common intention of all. Giving him benefit of doubt, he is absolved
of the liability under Section 34 of IPC insofar as the charges
under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC are concerned. He is, however,
found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC. [Para 16][904-D-F]
Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana (1978) 4
SCC 440; Vithal Laxman Chalawadi and others v. State
of Karnataka (2010) 14 SCC 739 : [2010] 12 SCR
RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
574; and Bishu Sarkarand others v State of 

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