Sewaram and Another v. State of U.P.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Leave granted.

2Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Before the High Court three persons had filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 Ram Prasad died. Therefore, the appeal was held to have abetted so far he is concerned. H

3The appellants were found guilty ofhaving committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant-Sewa Ram and the deceased-accused Ram Prasad were further convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-with default stipulation.

4The conviction was recorded by IV learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pillibhit, in Sessions Trial _No. 249of1980.

5Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: The complainant ShaukatAii, son ofNathu Bux, resident ofBarhara, P.S. Bisalpur, was doing service at the house of Jagan Nath, Prasad resident of village Chandpura who was related to Smt. Genda Devi, 0 widow of Jwala Prasad Kurmi, resident ofNaugamia, P.S. Bilsanda, who is hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'. Litigation was going on between Smt. GendaDevi and her step daughter Smt. Savitri Devi, who was living as wife of Ram Prasad of village Naugamia. On 22.8.1980, the complainant Shaukat Ali along with Jagan Nath and Smt. Genda Devi had gone to Tehsil Bisalpur in connection with the litigation and they were returning from Tehsil to village Chandpura at about 4 0 'clock and when they reached the outskirts of village Kangawan near the sugar cane field ofBabuji at 6 'O clock Smt. Genda Devi was going ahead; behind her was the complainant and behind him was Jagan Nath.

Suddenly accused Ram Prasad, Sewa Ram and Parmeshwari having 'Lathi s' in their hands and accused Sunder Lal having 'Kanta' in his hand suddenly came out from the sugar cane field and began to beat Smt. Genda Devi on which the complainant and Jagan Nath cried for help. Accused Ram Prasad and Sewa Ram then beat the complainant with 'Lathis'. The complainant and Jagan Nath ran away towards the village Kangavan and the accused ran away towards east. The complainant and Jagan Nath saw Smt. Genda Devi and found that she had died in the paddy field. The accused persons had murdered Smt. Genda Devi due to enmity oflitigation. Thereafter the complainant informed the residents of village Chandpura and the 'Chaukidar', Pradhan and other people of I 1 I SEWARAMANDANOTHER v.STATEOFU.P. the village, who came with the complainant to the spot.

It had fallen dark A and due to fear, he at once did not come to the police station to lodge the F.l.R. and remained sitting the whole night looking after the dead body. In the next morning on 23 .8.1980, the complainant lodged the F.1.R.(Ex. Ka. 3) at the Bisalpur police station. The crime was registered as crime No. 247 under Sections 302/323 LP.C. at the Bisalpur police B station and the S.O. Ram Lakhan Singh was entrusted with the investigation of the case. The details were entered in the G.D., a copy of which is Ex.Ka. 4. The LO. along with the S.I. Sahabdin arrived at the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka. 8) of the dead-body of Smt. Genda Devi. The dead-body was sealed and sample seal was c preserved, which is Ex. Ka. 11. The 1.0. made spot inspection and prepared the site-plan Ex. Ka. 5. The post mortem of the dead-body of Smt. Genda Devi was conducted by Dr. VP. Agarwal. The complainant Shaukat Ali who received injuries was also examined at the P.H.C. Bisalpur.

His injury report is Ex. Ka. I. After completion of the D investigation, the LO. submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused persons, they were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 l.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 341.P.C. The charges were read over and explained E to the accused persohs who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution version Shaukat Ali, (P. W.1 ), Dr. C.K. Chaturvedi (PW2) who conducted the medical examination of ShaukatAli and Jagan Nath(P.W.3), Dr. V.P. Agarwal, (PW 4) who conducted postmortem of the deceased Smt. GendaDevi,A.C. Pancham F Singh (PW 5), Constable Rampa! Sharma, (PW 6) and S.I. Ramlakhan Singh (PW 7) who conducted investigation were produced. The accused were examined who denied the allegations and contended that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

6Shaukat Ali the informant (PWl) and Jagan Nath (PW-3) claimed to be eye-witnesses. The trial Court relying on the version of the eye-witnesses recorded conviction and imposed sentenced as aforesaid. Before the High Court the stand was that there was inordinate delay in dispatching special report to the Magistrate. In addition, it was submitted H [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem noticed seven injuries and out of them three were incised wounds and injury 3, 4, 5, and 7 were lacerated wounds. It was submitted that the three accused persons who preferred appeal before the High Court were holding lathies and the Kanthi was held by Sewa Ram who had been acquitted. Therefore, B it was submitted that offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out.

7The case of the prosecution was that in view of the factual background offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is made out. The High Court, as noted above, dismissed the appeal c filed by the appellants.

8In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if prosecution version is accepted in totality, offence under Section 302 is not made out, much less by application of Section 34 IPC.

9Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the High Court.

10(As rightly held by the High Court the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 3 suffered from no infirmity.) The trial Court was, therefore, justified in convicting and holding appellants guilty.

11So far as the question as to whether Section 302 will be applied so far as appellants are concerned, it is to be noted that the trial Court and the High Court considered their cases in the background of Section 34 IPC.

12(Section 34 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 distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act 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) 1 I SEWARAMANDANOTHER v. STATEOFU.P. (circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the A proved circumstances.

In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the 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 the moment; but it B must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself.) As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Puref ab [1977 (1) SCC 7 46] the existence of a common intention amongst the C participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this section. (It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar.

The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the D provision.)

13(The section does not say ''the common intentions of all", nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common E 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 deceased in the same manner as if it F 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 observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy v. State of A.P [1993 Supp.(3) SCC 134]. G (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.)

14The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar v. SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl.)S.C.R. A State of UP [2004(3) SCC 793].

15(When the factual background is considered in the light of the principles highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that the appellants have been rightly convicted in terms of Section 302 read with Section B 34 IPC.)

16The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. NJ. Appeal dismissed.