LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus BAKHSHISH SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 14 S.C.R. 742 STATE OF PUNJAB V. BAKHSHISH SINGH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2002) OCTOBER 17, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C ss. 302134 and 304 (Part I) - Assault by four accused - On exhortation of one accused, deceased held by two ac- cused, and single blow of weapon inflicted by another accused - Conviction of all the accused by trial court uls. 302134 - High Court altering the conviction of the accused who had inflicted o the injuries to one uls. 304(Part I) and acquitting others - On appeal, held: High Court order is justified - In the facts of the case, role of the acquitted accused do not attract s. 34 - In · view of the fact that there was altercation between the parties, conviction rightly altered to s. 304 (Part I). E s. 34 - Common Intention - nature and applicability of - Discussed. ) ..,... Respondents-accused were prosecuted for the of- fence punishable uls,. 302134 IPC. According to prosecu- tion, all the four accused stood in the way of PWs 4 and 5 F and the deceased, while they were going to their home from their field. On exortation of one accused that they ,.. should not escape as they had damaged their crop, two accused took the deceased in their grip and threw him on the ground and the fourth accused inflicted a 'Chhavi' blow G on him, as a result of which, he died. Trial Court convicted all the accused for the offences charged under. High Court altered the conviction of the accused who had inflicted the ~ blow on the deceased, to one uls. 304 (Part I) IPC and ac- quitted rest of the accused. Hence the present appeal. H 742 ) '---( STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAKHSHISH SINGH 743 & ORS. Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1 Section 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 liability of one person for an of- fence committed by another in the course of criminal act B perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 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 available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the c 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 direct or circum- stantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the 0 accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be be- fore the commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if E each of them has done it individually by himself. [Para 5] [747, G-H; 748,A-C] 1.2 Section 34 does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34, the essence of the F liability is to be found in the existence of a common inten- tion animating the accused leading to the doing of a crimi- nal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Sec- G tion 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same man- ner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is in- tended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distin- guish between acts of individual members of a party who H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. Sec- tion 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34 it is. not necessary to show some overt act on the part of 8 the accused. The High Court analysed the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 to come to the conclusion that the role of the acquitted accused persons do not really attract Section 34 IPC. [Paras 8 and 10] [748,G-H; 749,A-C; 749,E] Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109; Ch. c Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.