Jagir Singh v.

State of Punjab
INTRODUCTION
Six persons including two appellants were tried of murder. Sessions Judge acquitted four accused as identification was not satisfactory but convicted two accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court altered the convictions to under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 32, the two accused who ever evicted accused filed an appeal and contended as offence committed in furtherance of common intention all accused should be acquitted. Court found that the two accused participated in offence with four unknown culprits, though it is not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was committed by six culprits including the two accused in furtherance of common intention of all they were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

FACTS
Tarlok Singh deceased was brutally attacked on the threshing floor of Amar Singh at a distance of eighty feet from his Haveli near the outskirt of village Purana Pind on April 27, 1965 at about 5:30 pm. The prosecution case was that all the six accused came to the spot with the object of killing Tarlok Singh, accused 5 was riding a white mare and carrying a spear, and the remaining five accused were on foot and were armed with kirpans or swords. Accused 5 shouted a challenge saying that Tarlok Singh must not be spared, accused 4 gave two kirpan blows on his feet, and accused 1 gave a sword blow on his neck and the other accused caused injuries to him with their swords. When the victim was almost dead, it was placed on the mare in front of accused 5 and all the six accused proceeded towards village Manoharpura. At a distance of about a mile near the canal minor, the body of the victim was thrown on the ground and accused 2 chopped the head from his body. Accused 2 and 5 rode away on the mare with the severed lead wrapped in the chaddar and turban of the victim and the other accused followed on foot. The investigating officer reached the spot at about 6.30 p.m. The trunk of the dead body was recovered at a place about a

mile distant from village Purana Pind near the actual minor. The head was never recovered. The identity of the trunk was satisfactorily established. The post- mortem examination revealed six injuries. In the opinion of the medical witness, the death resulted from the cutting of the neck, caused with some sharp-edged heavy weapon. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, 3, 4 and 6. He was not satisfied that the witnesses had correctly identified accused 2, 4 and 6. He gave accused 3 the benefit of doubt as the evidence of the witnesses regarding his presence was not corroborated by other evidence. The courts below found that there could be no mistake about the identity of accused 1 and 5. With regard to their identity, the veracity of Amar Singh was not shaken and the evidence of the three other eye-witnesses was consistent positive and unimpeachable. Accused 1 made a disclosure statement and pointed out a place near the bank of the canal about a mile or a mile and a half from the place where the trunk of the dead body had been found. Four pieces of teeth, one piece of skull bone and hair recovered from the place pointed out by accused 1 were found to be of human origin. There is reason to believe that the severed head of the victim was cut to pieces at the spot. A chaddar was recovered from accused 1 at the time of his arrest. The chaddar had been washed but on examination by the chemical examiner and serologist it was found that it has stains of human blood. Both accused 1 and 5 had a strong motive for the murder. Though the courts below discarded a part of the prosecution story and gave the benefit of doubt to four accused, they were justified in accepting the prosecution case regarding the participation of accused 1 and 5 in the attack on the victim.

ISSUES
1. Whether there was an unlawful assembly with the common intention and objective to commit murder. 2. Who is liable for delivering the fatal blow to the deceased?

RULES & ANALYSIS WITH REFERENCE TO INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention : When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Meaning: there are three main ingredients of the section: (i) (ii) (iii) A criminal act must be done by several persons; The criminal act must be to further the common intention of all, and There must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention.1

A common intention is an intention shared by the person who has committed the offence and by other assailants who did not themselves commit it.2 The common intention within the meaning of the section implies pre-arranged plan and to convict accused of an offence by applying the section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.3 Thus common intention is intention shared by all. It is a prior meeting of minds and participation of all the members of the group in the execution of that plan.4 Common intention is a question of a fact in each case. It may be developed on the spur of the moment.5

Object of Section 34: Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of the common intention of all. This section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it individually. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act.
1 2

Parichhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 535 AIR 1939 Oudh 207: Cri LJ 722 3 AIR 1946 All 153: 1945 ALJ 531 4 Matiullah Sheikh vs. State of W.B., AIR 1965 SC132 5 Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2002) 6 SCC 739

COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT: DISTINCTION Where there is no prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan, there is no common intention. In such cases each one would be liable individually, but not vicariously. Common intention is action in concert as pre-arranged plan. Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons.6 It should be shared by all.

Cases: 1. In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v King Empror7, the accused were charged under Section 302 read with section 34, with the murder of a postmaster. According to the evidence, while was in his office busy counting money, three persons fired pistols at him as the postmaster did not hand over the money to them. The accused was one of them. The postmaster was hit in two places and he died. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied that the postmaster was killed with furtherance of the common intention of all the three men , then the accused was guilty of murder, whether he fired the pistol shot or not. The court convicted him. In appeal to the Privy Council it was held that the direction given to the jury was correct. Similarly where each several persons took part in beating a person so as to break eighteen ribs and cause his death,8 a number of men armed with sticks made a joint pre-planned attack on another man and practically killed him on the spot,9 where a group of persons out of which some had lathis and one had a gun set out towards a field with common intention of attacking another group amd preventing them from irrigating a field from well and attacked the other group killing two persons and injuring others,10 they all were held guilty of murder on account of their common intention.11 However where evidence of common intention was not forthcoming, the person could not be held guilty of murder.12 2. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab13: it is not necessary for bringing a case within the scope of Section 34 to find as to who in fact inflicted the fatal blow. A conviction
6 7

Jadu Patel, 1979 Cut LR Ori 11. AIR 1925 PC1. 8 G.C. Das, (1875) 24 WR Cr(5) 9 Siphai Singh, (1922) 45 All 130 10 Irshad Ullah Khan, (1933) 55 All 607 11 Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260 12 Jumman Khan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 465 13 AIR 2000 SC 2212

under the section read with the relevant substantive provision can be made when ingredients required by the section are satisfied and it is not necessary to mention the section number in the judgment. Acts done in excess of common intention will not make others liable. 14

Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object: If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members or that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Meaning: The law does not declare the mere assemblage of men, however large, illegal. What is required is that in order to be illegal it must be inspired by an illegal object.15 The principal is that law should discourage tumultuous assemblage of men. The object of this section therefore is to prevent people from restoring to criminal force. The section has the following essentials(i) (ii) Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.16 Scope of Section 149: The Section is divided into two parts: 1. In Prosecution of the Common Object: The words in prosecution of the common object show that the offence committed was immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which accused were members. The act must have been done with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.
14 15

1 Hale PC 439. AIR 1925 Nag 260: 26 Cri LJ 587: 86 IC 731 16 State of Maharashtra v. Kashiram, (2003) 10 SCC 434

2. Members Knew to Be Likely: The second part relates to a situation where the members of the assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. A thing is likely to happen only when the situation is like it will probably happen or may very well happen. The word knew indicates a state of mind at the time of commission of an offence; knowledge in this regard must be proved. The word likely means some clear evidence that the unlawful assembly had such knowledge.

Exceptions of Section 149:

Principle of vicarious liability. This section is the declaratory of the principle of vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of common object of that assembly, all the members of that assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the said office.

Unlawful assembly: It is not necessary under any law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful object, the unlawful assembly must be unlawful object to attract this section. Also too attract section 149 of IPC, only member of unlawful assembly is not enough, the person should have understood that assembly as unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of section 141 of IPC, and it must have been committed in prosecution of common object.

Common object: the word Object means purpose or design to make it common, it must be share by all. It may be formed at any stage by all or few members. It may be modify or altered or abandoned at any state. Common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation. The sharing of common object would, however, not necessarily require the member present and sharing the object to engage himself in doing an over act. Therefore this section is inapplicable in a case of sudden mutual fight between two parties, because of lack of common object.

Cases: 1. In Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar17, the Supreme Court has practically summed up the law about vicarious liability of every person who, at the time of the committing of [that] offence was a member of the assembly. Section 149 is
17

AIR 1960 SC 725

declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. 2. Bhajan Singh case18: where the accused came together with deadly weapons, challenged the deceased in a determined fashion and then ran away together, it could be presumed that their common object was to kill or at least they knew the fatal consequences were likely to ensue in prosecution of the common object. They were, therefore all liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender: Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;

if a capital offence.shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.and if the offence is punishable with[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment.and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

18

1974 CrLJ 1029

Meaning: The section has four paras. Para one describes the offence and the remaining paras lay down the punishment. The section is concerned with two offences. First, causing the evidence of commission to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment and second, giving false information respecting an offence committed with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.19

Cases: 1. State of U.P v. Mahendra Singh.20, where the members of an unlawful assembly indiscriminately killed five persons, dragged the dead bodies over a distance, beheaded the victims and threw the limbs and bodies in raging fire, they have not only committed an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but were also liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Abdul Razaqs case21, a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside only on the basis of minor discrepancies or for non explanation of minor circumstances.

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.

Meaning: Section 302 provides punishment for murder. It stipulates a punishment of death or imprisonment for life and fine. Once an offender is found by the court to be guilty of the offence of murder under s 300, then it has to sentence the offender to either death sentence or imprisonment for life. The court has no power to impose any other lesser sentence.22

Case:

19 20

Shamim Rahmani v. State of U.P., (1975) 4 SCC 652 AIR 1975 SC 455 21 AIR 1984 SC 452 22 State v Savithri (1976) Cr LJ 37 (Mad).

1. Krishnan v. State23: The acts of all the accused need not be the same or identically similar. All that is necessary is that they all must be actuated by the one and the same common intention. The fact that two of them caused injuries at the back of their victim and the injury at the head which proved to be fatal was caused by the third person, the two co-accused could not claim to be absolved of their liability for murder. 2. Dhaneshwar Mahakud v. State of Orissa24: The injury caused to the deceased clearly indicated the intention to eliminate him and also showed common intention on the part of the accused. It was held that the mere fact that the change was framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 and not read with Section 34, did not cause any prejudice to the accused. Convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was permissible.

23 24

(2003) 7 SCC 56 AIR 2006 SC 1727

ANALYSIS
The case between Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab25 was first taken up in the Sessions Court, where the Ld. Judge convicted Accused 1 and Accused 5 of the offences under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them with death and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the Honble High Court, the Honble High Court altered the convictions of those under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed sentences. After which the accused 1 and 5 appealed to the Supreme Court of India, where the Judgment was delivered by Justice R.S. Bachawat, who critically analysed all the facts and circumstances of the case and relied on previous precedents to deliver the appropriate judgment for the aforementioned case. Justice R.S. Bachawat acceded with the judgment pronounced by the Honble High Court. In the present case the charge against the six accused including the two appellants was that they were members of an unlawful assembly whose common objective was to commit the murder of Tarlok Singh, i.e. the deceased. The contention made by the appellants is that there were six named accused charged with section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the evidence is also directed to establish that the said six persons have taken part in this calamitous murder, but the question who gave the fatal blow is abstruse. The one fact that is clear in the present case is that Accused 1 and 5 participated in the offence with four other unknown culprits. Though six named persons were charged with the offence, there was a mistake in the identity of three of the accused and with regard to another accused, the benefit of the doubt was given and no independent corroboration was available. Accused 1 and 5 shared the common intention with four other persons whose identity has not been established. The question raised is cleared by the dictum of Justice R.S. Bachawat even after relying on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of Bombay26; though it is not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was committed by six culprits including accused 1 and 5 in furtherance to

25 26

AIR 1968 SC 43 (1960) 2 SCR 172

10

common intention of all and each is liable for the murder as though it had been committed by him alone.

CONCLUSION
I agree with the judgment pronounced by the Honble Supreme Court pronounced by Justice R.S. Bachawat, who has analysed the facts, circumstances, the present laws and the precedents set by the Apex Court and then delivered this congruous judgment. Six named persons were charged with the offence, there was a mistake in the identity of three of the accused and with regard to another accused, and the benefit of doubt was given as no independent corroboration was available. Accused 1 and 5 were two of the six culprits who participated in the attack. The murder was committed by six culprits including accused 1 and 5 in furtherance of the common intention of all. Accused 1 and 5 shared the common intention with the four other culprits whose identity has not been established. Though it is not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was committed by six culprits including accused 1 and 5 in furtherance of the common intention of all and each of them is liable for the murder as though it had been committed by him alone. Taking into consideration the manner and method of murder of Tarlok Singh, (deceased) by the appellants and their four companions as a whole from start to the end, the appellants, about whose identity there is no manner of doubt whatsoever, cannot escape the consequences of the act of all the six persons merely because in the case of three of those who have been acquitted the learned Judge has not been satisfied as to their identity and the fourth he has acquitted on a consideration that as no corroboration is available as to him of the witnesses he may be given the benefit of doubt. The matter might have been different if the learned Judge had disbelieved the witnesses with regard to those four persons, but this he has not done. Accused 1 and 5 were rightly convicted of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The murder was ruthless and cold-blooded. There are no extenuating circumstances. They were rightly sentenced to death. They were also

11

rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under s. 201 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of the common intention of all. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act. Whereas, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is intended with the objective that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at that time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS: J. Chandrachud, Y K and Manohar VR, Indian Penal Code- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 31st edition 2007 Manohar, V R, Indian penal Code-Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 33rd edition 2010 Pillai, PSA Criminal Law, KI Vibhute 10th edition Reprint 2012

REFERENCE TO INTERNET: www.scconline.com www.manupatra.com

13