Laxmanji and Anr. versus State of Gujarat — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

Laxmanji and Anr. versus State of Gujarat — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal of accused nos. 2 and 3 allowed; their conviction altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, with a custodial sentence of three years.

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 34 IPC (common intention) can be applied to the appellants — accused nos. 2 and 3, who were unarmed and merely caught hold of the deceased while accused no. 1 inflicted the knife blows — so as to sustain their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Court's answer

To apply Section 34, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of an offence; if common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 is attracted as it involves vicarious liability.

Ratio / Principle

It is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation to bring a case under Section 34; the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence.

Key takeaways

Where participation of the accused in the crime is proved but common intention is absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked.ratio¶10
On the factual scenario of this case, the appellants (accused nos. 2 and 3) cannot be attributed any common intention to cause the murder of the deceased.ratio¶10
The appropriate conviction for the appellants is under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC (in place of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC), and a custodial sentence of three years would meet the ends of justice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 r/w s.34 and s.326 r/w s.34: Accused nos. 2 and 3, though unarmed, were convicted for murder u/s.302 r/w s.34 merely because they caught hold of the victim while accused no. 1, carrying a knife, inflicted the fatal blows. Held: such conviction is not justified — no common intention to cause the murder can be attributed to accused nos. 2 and 3, and the appropriate conviction is u/s.326 r/w s.34 with three years' custody. On s.34 generally: prior conspiracy or pre-meditation is unnecessary, common intention may be formed in the course of the occurrence, and two factors must be established — (i) common intention and (ii) participation; if participation is proved but common intention is absent, s.34 cannot be invoked (Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083, relied on). Appeal allowed.

[2008] 17 $.C.R. 171

•

-~

LAXMANJI AND ANR.

v.

A

STATE OF GUJARAT

(Criminal Appeal No.1972 of 2008)

DECEMBER 5, 2008

B

[DR. ARiJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

\

Penal Code, 1860:

c

~

i 4-

"-1

s.302 rlw s.34 and s.326 rlw s.34 - Four accused - Accused nos. 2 and 3, who were unarmed, caught hold of the victim while accused no.1, who was carrying a knife, inflicted knife blows on right abdomen and thigh of the victim - Victim taken to hospital where he died - Conviction of accused D nos. 2 and 3 u/s.302 rlw s.34 - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Accused nos. 2 and 3 cannot· be attributed any common intention to cause the murder of the victim - Hence, appropriate conviction would be under s.326 rlw s.34 and not uls.302 rlw s.34.

E

s.34 - Applicability of - Held: In order to bring a case under s.34 it is not necessary that there must be prior conspiracy or pre-meditation - Common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence - To apply s.34, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two F factors must be established:(i) common intention and (ii) participation of accused in commission of offence - If common intention is proved, but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, s.34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability - But if participation of the .. G accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, s.34 cannot be invoked.

The prosecution case was that the four accused went

~ --t

H

171

e

[2008] 17 S.C.R.

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

,.,.

~

·. •

~

·- ~

' )-

A to the house of the victim whereafter accused no.2 and 3, who were unarmed, caught hold of the victim While accused no.1, who was carrying a knife, inflicted knife blows on the right abdomen as also the thigh of the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital where he B^{succumbedto his injuries.} ,...,,

-r

~

~

The trial court convicted accused nos.1, 2 and 3 under s.302 r/w 34 IPC but acquitted accused no.4. The conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 was upheld by High c^{Court. The present appeal has been filed by accused nos.} 2 and 3.

-1

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In order to bring a case under s.34 it is D^{not necessary that there must beaprior conspiracyor} pre-meditation. The common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. To apply s.34 apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established:(i) common intention and (ii) E^{participation of accused in the commission of an offence.} If common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, s.34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liabili,ty. But if participation of the accused in the crime· is proved and common intention is absent, s.34 cannot be invoked. F [Para 1 O] [175-D-F]

1.2. The factual scenario goes to show that the appellants cannot be attributed any common intention to cause the murder of the deceased. In the background G^{facts, the appropriate conviction would be s.326 read with} s.34 IPC. Custodial sentence of three years would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 10 and 11] [175-D-Gl

Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1083, relied on.

H

·)-

I -+-

~.-

r·

;--,

173

LAXMANJI AND ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT

\ 4-

-r

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1999 SC 1083 relied on ·Para 10

A

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1972 of 2008.

_..,

\

From the Judgment and final Order dated 17 .1.2008 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 259 of 301 of 1999.

Shankar Divate for the Appellants.

Hemantika Wahi and Mamta Tushir for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B

c

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

...;

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the accused appellant nos. 1 to 3. Four persons faced trial and the trial court directed acquittal of accused No . 4. All the accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishabJe under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC'). Three appeals were filed before the High Court. Two of them were by accused No. 1 (Criminal Appeal No. 259/99) and the other Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1999 by accused nos. 2 and 3. Criminal Appeal 380/1999 was preferred by the State questioning acquittal of original accused No. 4.

D

E

F

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

-<

On 26/10/1997, at around 15.30 hours, Nainaben, daughter of deceased -Bhamraji, had gone to fetch water from a nearby public tap. As there was no supply of water in the said tap at the relevant point of time, Nianaben went to the house original accused No. 3, which was situated in the neighbourhood of her house, to fetch the same. While Naina~n was fetching water, original accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 and some

G

H

'""" •

(2008] 17 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

174

.

e

A other persons began to tease Nainaben. Therefore, Nainaben returned to her house.

--t-

After returning to her house, Nainaben informed about

the said incident to her father deceased Bhamarji. As a result thereof, the deceased-Bhamraji went to the house of original

B accused No. 3 and warned them not to re.peat such thing in future. Thereafter, the deceased left the house of original accused No. 3.

Sometime later, all the four accused 'pe·rsons went to the c^{houseof deceased-Bhamraji and during that time, original.} accused No. 1 was having a "Rampuri" -knife, original accused No. 4 was having a stick while the tWo other' accused persons, i.e. original accused Nos. 2 and 3, were unarmed. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased while D^{original accused No.1, who was having a knife, Inflicted knife} blows on 'the right hand side region of the abdomen as also the thigh 'region of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deeeased·fell down and alltlie accused persons fled· the scene of offence. ,- ·

-1

""

E 7; Thereafter, the deceased was taken to $ardarnagar Police Station in an Auto-rickshaaw. At that time, the P.S.I. of Sardarnagar Police Station, Kanaksing .Bhulabhai Rathod, advisd that the deceased be taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for necessary treatment.- Accordingly, the F^{deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmadabad, where he} was given riecessary tratment.

·On the basis of information given case was registered for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequen.tly the dying declaration of the ~eceased was G sought to be·recorded. But before the dying declaration could be· recorded the decEiased succumbed to injuries on 27.10.1997. Therefore Section 302 IPC was added to the complaint. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons abjurd guilt, trial was held. The trial c.ourt. H believed 'the .evidence "placed on record and convicted the

j --~-

y· !

y

"""'""

,>

LAXMANJI AND ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J.]

175

,

, _.. -

accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 while directed acquittal of accused No. 4. As noted above three appeals were filed before the High Court.

The High Court dismissed all .the appeals. When the matter was placed for grant of leave to file appeal, the petition was dismissed qua Chandan singh accused No. 1. Therefore present appeal relates to other two accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that A 2 was not armed. It is therefore submitted that the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the State on the other supported the judgment.

The basic question arises for consideration is whether Section 34 can be applied so far as the appellants are concerned. The factual scenario as noted above goes to show that the appellant cannot be attributed any common intention to cause the murder of the deceased. In order to bring a case under Section 34 it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation. The common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. To apply Section 34 apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established :(i) common intention and (ii) participation .of accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability. But if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, section 34 cannot be invoked. (See Jai Bhagwan VS. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083).

In the background facts, the appropriate conviction would be Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Custodial sentence of three years would meet the ends of justice.

A

8

C

0

E

F

G

The appeal is allowed with the above observation.

B.B.B.

Appeal allowed.

H