SACHIN JANA AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- -'( 
' 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 14 
+ 
A 
SACHIN JANA AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2008) 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
.... 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
..., 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 307 r w. s. 34 - Acid poured on victims resulting in face 
disfiguration - Conviction under s. 307 and s~ntence of 10 
years imposed - High Court altering conviction to ss.307134 
-
On appeal, Held: s.307 r. w.s.34 clearly applicable -
Considering nature of dispute, sentence is reduced to 5 years. 
D 
s.34 - Distinctive features - Laid down. 
s.307 - Conviction under - Essential requirement -
. 
Discussed. 
The prosecution case was that informant PW-1 was 
E cultivating land when 20 persons including the appellants, 
armed with various weapons assaulted PW-1 with blows, 
kicks, iron rods and also poured acid on his face and 
body. Appellants also poured acid on PW-2 and PW-3 and 
assaulted another person who came forward to save PW-
F 
1. Trial Court primarily relied on the evidence of PWs 1,2 
and 3 who were claimed to be the victims of acid pouring 
"' 
and convicted 14 persons under s.307 IPC and sentenced 
each person to 10 years imprisonment. On appeal, High 
Court dismissed the appeal so far it related to the 
appellants, but altered conviction to s.307134 IPC. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that 
s.34 IPC has no application; that the offence under s.307 
is not made out and that the sentence as imposed was 
excessive. 
H 
14 
)--
SACHIN JANA AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
15 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. 5.34 IPC has been enacted on the principle 
of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section 
is 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 8 
person for an offence committed by another in the course 
of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises 
under s.34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a 
common intention of the persons who join in committing 
the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom C 
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 D 
direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of 
minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence 
for which they are charged with the aid of s.34, be it pre-
arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must 
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The E 
true concept of the section is that if two or more 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 1 O] [19-D-H] 
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (1977) 1 SCC 7 46 -
F 
,... 
relied on. 
1.2. The section does not say "the common i 
intentions of all", nor does it say "an intention common 
to all". Under the provisions of s.34 the essence of the G 
liability is to be found in the existence of a common 
r 
intention animating the accused leading to the doing .of a 
criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result 
of the application of principles enunciated in s.34, when 
an accused is convicted under s.302 read with s.34, in H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
-( 
A law it means that the accused is liable for the .act which 
+ 
,• 
caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it 
was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet 
a case in which it may.be difficult to distinguish between 
t-
acts of individual members of a party who act in 
B furtherance of the common intention of. all or to prove 
exactly what part was taken by each of them. [Para 11] 
[20-C-E] 
y 
ChintaPulla Reddy v. State of A.P. (1993) Supp. 3 134; 
c 
Girija Shankar vs. State of U.P. (2004) 4 sec 793 - relied on. 
2.1. Three persons suffered injuries on account of 
acid poured on them. The doctor had indicated that each 
of the injured persons suffered more than 50% burn injury 
which was caused due to acid and the same was sufficient 
D to cause death if not attended by medical ai.d at 
appropriate time. [Para 9] [19-C] 
2.2. To justify conviction under s.307 IPC, it is not 
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death 
shou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.