Shashi Mohan v. State of M.P.

Supreme Court15 Jul 20082008 INSC 829 · [2008] 10 S.C.R. 9782008 INSC 829

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shashi Mohan v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 2008, Supreme Court of India, decided 15.07.2008 ([2008] 10 S.C.R. 978), Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam JJ. Keywords: Section 34 IPC; common intention; Section 302 r/w s.34; murder; overt act not necessary for s.34; s.34 applies even if no injury caused by particular accused; no evidence of sharing common intention; acquittal of A2; appeal allowed; Ch. Pulla Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1993 SC 1899; Additional Sessions Judge Morena; Madhya Pradesh High Court Crl. Appeal No. 83 of 1993; life imprisonment set aside; FIR Sr. No.144/92 PS Kotwali; deceased Rakesh shot by A3.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the appellant (A2) to be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case. ¶¶82

Shashi Mohan versus State of M.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the appellant (A2) to be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case.

¶¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's (A2's) conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified when his pre-mediation/common intention with A1 and A3 was not proved, he was admittedly neither armed with any weapon, and no overt act was attributed to him. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

On the background facts of the present case, the accusations were not established so far as the present appellant (A2) is concerned; no evidence was led to show his sharing of common intention with A1 and A3, and his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was therefore not justified.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 34 IPC the essence of liability is the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention; when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law he is liable for the act which caused the death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.

¶¶80

Key takeaways

Section 34 is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all, or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.ratio¶¶80
Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself (as observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy), and for applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.ratio¶¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 2008 (decided July 15, 2008; Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.; judgment by Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.) — Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 302 r/w 34 — Murder — Common intention — Scope. Appellant (A2, Shashi Mohan) was prosecuted with A1 (Rameshwardayal) and A3 (Revimohan) for the murder of Rakesh, shot dead by A3 on 3.3.1992 at Morena; motive alleged was previous enmity. Trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Morena) convicted all three u/s 302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment; during the High Court appeal A1 died and his appeal abated; the High Court maintained A2's conviction u/s 302 r/w s.34 (A3 convicted u/s 302). Held: the essence of liability under s.34 is a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention; conviction u/s 302 r/w s.34 renders the accused liable for the act causing death as if done by him alone; s.34 applies even if the particular accused caused no injury, and its application does not require an overt act by the accused (observation in Ch. Pulla Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1899, engaged with). However, on the facts, no evidence was led to show the appellant's sharing of common intention and the accusations against him were not established. Appeal allowed; appellant set at liberty forthwith unless required in custody in connection with any other case.

,..

•

(2008] 10 S.C.R. 978

SHASHI MOHAN

STATE OF M.P.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 2008)

JULY 15, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

¶17

Penal Code, 1860:

¶18

s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Prosecution under alongwith c two other accused -Accused not armed with any weapon - No overt act attributed to him - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: Conviction not justified - In the facts of the case accusation not proved against the accused - No evidence led to show his sharing of common intention with other accused.

s. 34 - Common intention - Invocation- Scope of- Held: The aid of the provision is invoked when it is difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party acting in furtherance of common intention - For invocation of the provision it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.

¶23

Appellant-accused (A2) along with two accused A1 and A3 was prosecuted u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. There were three witnesses to the incident. The motive was alleged to be enmity between the parties. Trial Court convicted all the accused u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. During pendency of appeal before High Court, A-1 died and his appeal abated. A-2 (appellant) was convicted u/s 302 r/w s. 34 while A-3 was convicted under s. 302.

¶24

In appeal to this court, appellant-accused No.2 contended that his conviction was not justified by aid of s.34 as his pre-meditation with other accused was not proved and admittedly he was neither armed nor any overt act was attributed to him.

'll

,-~

978

979

SHASHI MOHAN v. STATE OF M.P.

¶33

¶34

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶35

¶36

HELD: Under the provisions of Section 34 IPC the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common 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 in⁸ Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section·. 302 r/w Section 34, in 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 diffiC cult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section D 34 it is not necessary to &how some overt act on the part of the accused. However, in the background facts of the present case, the accusations were not established so far as the present appellant is concerned. No evidence was led to show sharing of common intention. [Paras 8 E and 9] [981-E,F,G & H; 982-A]

¶37

Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 1899 - referred to .

¶38

., '

¶39

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 2008

¶40

¶41

From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal No. 83 of 1993

¶42

\ ~ t

¶43

Nagendra Rai, P.H. Parekh, Jetendra Singh and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant.

¶44

¶45

Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, Ram Naresh Yadav, Merusagar Samanta Ray and Sunny Choudhary for the Respondent.

¶46

¶47

980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 10 S.C.R.

)'-

,,. ~ • -~ +-

~ ' f t ~ • }- ' I r,

.-r i-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division_Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. Three persons, nameiy, Rameshwardayal, Shashimohan and Revimohan hereinafter described as A 1, A2 and A3 faced trial for alleged commission. of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Additional Sessions Judge, Morna, found them guilty and sentenced each to life imprisonment During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court A 1 died and, therefore, the appeal was held to have abated so far as A 1 is concerned. The present appeal is by A2. A1 and A2 were convicted and· sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while A was found guilty ofoffence punishable u_nder Section 302 IPC.

¶60

Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

¶61

On 3.3.92 at.9.30 a.m. on a road from Pipalwali Mata to Rui Ki Mandi and ahead of a Chauraha in Morena one Rakesh E S/o Ram Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was shot dead by A3 who pumped into him three gun shots resulting in instant death of said Rakesh. There r~portedly existed previous enmity between the family of A 1 and of Ram Singh father of the deceased. A 1 and Ram Singh are real brother. The incident F was reported to Police at Police Station Kotwali at 9.40 a.m. by Radheyshyam (PW1}, brother of the deceased Rakesh. FIR (Ex.P/1) was recorded and the investigation was set in motion by Registering a crime at Sr. No.144/92 under Section 302/34 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. G Accused persons abjured guilt and claimed trial.

¶62

'te:

¶63

. 4. In order to establish its accusations, the prosecution^- , ' ' examined 12 witnesses. PWs, 1, 2 and 3 were stated to be eyewitnesses. In order to estab!ish its plea of false implication DW1 was examined to prove the presence of A3 at a different

¶64

. 1J , ' ' .. ..,. '

¶65

·H

¶66

SHASHI MOHAN v. STATE OF M.P. 981 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ]

¶67

¶68

...,

¶69

place. Trial Court found the evidence to be cogent and recorded conviction as noted above.

¶70

·Before the High Court the primary stand of the appellant was that so far as he is concerned, Section 34 IPC has no application. The High Court did not accept that plea .

¶71

¶72

¶73

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has categorically noted that none of the eye witnesses stated thatA2, the present appellant has pre-mediated with A 1 and A3 before the offence was committed. The witnesses admitted that the appellant was not armed c with weapon and no overt act was attributed to him. Further, he was coming from a different direction and, therefore, the question of his sharing the common intention was not there.

.. >

• f

'...,..._

\ ~

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that though A2 was not armed with and was coming from a different direction, his presence has been established. He being the son of A 1 and the brother of A3, the main assailant the ingredients of Section 34 have been clearly established.

¶79

¶80

Under the provisions of Section 34 IPC the essence of E the liability is to be found in the existence of a common 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 Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the^F 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 acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was G observed in Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors.· v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Al R 1993 SC 1899), Section 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 the accused. H

¶81

¶82

	982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A B	9.When the background facts are consideredinthe light oflegal principles set out above, the position is clear that the accusations were not established so far as the present appel- lantisconcerned.Noevidence was led to show sharing of com- mon intention. The appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. Hebeset at liberty forthwith unless requiredtobeincus- todyinconnection with any other case. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.	.,..,	., !-,_ ! I t

¶83

r.'

Shashi Mohan v. State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Mohan v. State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damara Venkata Murali Krishna Rao versus Gurujupalli Satvathamma

Union of India versus Satrohan

Dumpala Chandra Reddy versus Nimakayala Balireddy and Ors.

The Kerala State Electricity Board versus Chinamma Antony

State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shish Ram

Moti Lal versus State of M.P.