SUBED ALI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 30-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
SUBED ALI AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA
AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302/34 – The prosecution alleged that
two persons were assaulted while they were returning from the
market on bicycles along with others – One of them died on the
spot and the other one died in the hospital – The appellants-
accused were convicted u/s. 302/34 and sentenced to life
imprisonment – Originally there were five named accused persons
– Accused nos. 3 and 5 were acquitted on the benefit of doubt –
There is no appeal against their acquittals – Appellants contended
that if two accused have been acquitted giving them benefit of
doubt on basis of the same evidence, the conviction of the
appellants is unjustified – On appeal, held: The P.W. 5, 6, 7 and 9
deposed that appellant no. 1 stopped the deceased, then appellant
no. 2 assaulted one of them who died on the spot and appellant
no. 3 assaulted the other person/victim and injured him – When
the other victim tried to flee from the place of occurrence, he was
chased by accused persons and caught and was brutally assaulted
– The other victim later died in the hospital – There is no reason
to doubt the presence and assault on the two deceased by appellant
nos. 2 & 3 to grant them acquittal on any benefit of doubt or parity
with the acquitted, merely because no appeal was preferred – As
far as appellant no. 1 is concerned, the appellant no. 1 had stopped
the two deceased who were returning from the market and the
assault commenced after the deceased had halted – No further
evidence is required with regard to existence of common intention
in appellant no. 1 to commit the offence in question – Resultantly,
there is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of
the appellants.
Criminal law – Common intention – Held: Common intention
consists of several persons acting in unison to achieve a common
  [2020] 8 S.C.R. 731
731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
purpose, though their roles may be different – The role may be
active or passive is irrelevant, once common intention is
established – There can hardly be any direct evidence of common
intention – It is more a matter of inference to be drawn from the
facts and circumstances of a case based on the cumulative
assessment of the nature of evidence available against the
participants – The foundation for conviction on the basis of
common intention is based on the principle of vicarious
responsibility by which a person is held to be answerable for the
acts of others with whom he shared the common intention.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Similar to deposition of PW-5, PW-6, 7 and 9
deposed that appellant no.1 stopped the deceased, appellant no.
2 assaulted one of the deceased with a ‘Dao’, who died on the
spot. Appellant no.3 assaulted the other person and injured him.
The injured tried to flee from the place of occurrence. He was
chased by the accused persons and caught near a house where
he was brutally assaulted. He was then dragged to the spot where
deceased was lying. The injured was taken to the hospital and
died the same night. The deposition of P.W.6 in his cross
examination with regard to darkness affecting identification is
inconsequential in view of the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7
and 9 that it was evening time after sunset but not dark, making
identification in the dusk possible. In any event, it is apparent
that the parties were known to each other from before and
therefore identification in the dusk cannot be doubted. [Para 11]
[737-H; 738-A-C]
2. This Court, therefore, find no reason to doubt the
presence and assault on the two deceased by appellant nos.2 &
3 to grant them acquittal on any benefit of doubt or parity with
the acquitted accused, merely because no appeal has been
preferred. [Para 12][738-C-D]
3. That leaves for consideration of this Court the
submission that the appellant no.1 is entitled to acquittal as he
cannot be said to have shared any common intention with
appellants nos. 2 and 3 and who are liable for their individual
acts. Common intention consists of several persons acting in
unison to achieve a common purpose, though their roles may
be different. The role may be active or passive is irrelevant,
once common intention is established. There can hardly be any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
direct evidence of common intention. It is more a matter of
in

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