LexSARAVANAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF PONDICHERRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SARA V ANAN AND ANR. v. STATE OF PONDICHERRY NOVEMBER 3, 2004 B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Section 304 II read with section 34-Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Conviction and sentence of three accused -However, others acquitted-High Court upheld the order-SLP -of one C accused dismissed-Plea of remaining accused that section 34 not applicable-On appeal held: ·On facts proved that criminal act committed in furtherance of common intention-Medical evidence that head injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death-Also there was no motive to cause death-Hence section 34 rightly applied by courts below for D convicting accused under section 304 II read with section 34 /PC. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day appellants - A3 and A4 dashed against the cycle of PW-1 and abused him. PW-1, PW-2, N and others ignored their conduct and proceeded further but the appellants chased them and prevented PW-1 from proceeding further and picked up a quarrel. Al, E A2, AS and A-6 came there. Appellants assaulted PWl and PW2. Al assaulted N, as a result of which N fell down on his back and sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter, died. All accused were charged for commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 323, 341, 302 read with section 149 IPC. Trial court taking note of concession by public prosecutor that there was no motive F to cause death of N, observed that no offence was made out under section 302 IPC. It convicted Al, A3 and A4 for offence punishable under section 304 II read with section 34 IPC, however; acquitted A2, AS and A6 since there was no evidence against them. High Court upheld the order. This Court dismissed the SLP filed by A-1, however; granted leave to A3 and A4. Hence the present appeaL G H Appellants - A3 and A4 contended that courts below erred in applying section 34 and holding the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC as appellants have not caused any injury to the deceased nor intended to cause his death. 890 . .,._ SARA V ANAN v. ST A TE OF PONDICHERRY 891 Respondent - State contended that both the courts were right in invoking A Section 34 IPC. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 34 IPC enacts that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such B persons, is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The section thus lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act The essence of that liability is found in the existence of 'common intention' animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The section is intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the act of individual members of a party C and to prove exactly what part was played by each of them. Thus, it is an exception to the general rule of criminal jurisprudence that it is the primary responsibility of the person who actually commits a crime and only that person can be held guilty and punished in accordaPce with law for his individual act (894-E-GI D 1 .2. From the prosecution case, as believed by trial court as well as by High Court, it is proved that it was a clear case of doing of a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention. It was also in the evidence of the doctor that the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Furthe~, taking into consideration the concession by the Public E Prosecutor that there was no motive to cause death of deceased, the case would not be covered by Section 300 IPC, accused Nos. I, 3 and 4 were convicted by trial court for an offence punishable under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, trial court and High Court committed no error of law by applying Section 34 IPC and convicting and scntendng appellants for an offence under Section 304 II read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, order of trial F court and High Court are upheld. 1896-F-H; 897-A-BI Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, (1924) 52 IA 40: AIR (1925) PC I; Gurdatla Mal and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1965) SC 257 and AfrahimShiekhandOrs. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 119641SC1263, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1070 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.