Case Note & Summary
This case involved an appeal by Virendra Singh against his conviction for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident arose when the deceased, Bhagirath, refused to reap the crops for the accused due to prior commitments. In retaliation, Virendra Singh, along with his father Hakim Singh and brother Kamlesh, armed with weapons, confronted Bhagirath at his home. During the altercation, Kamlesh shot Bhagirath, leading to his death. The trial court convicted all three accused based on consistent eyewitness testimonies. The High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the common intention shared among the accused to harm Bhagirath. The appellant argued that he should not be held liable as he did not directly cause the fatal injury. However, the court clarified that under section 34 IPC, all participants in a pre-arranged plan to commit a crime could be held vicariously liable for the actions of one another. The court found that the evidence established a clear common intention among the accused to harm the deceased, thus affirming the conviction. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - The appellant was convicted for murder in furtherance of common intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The court held that the appellant, along with co-accused, acted with a pre-arranged plan to harm the deceased, thus establishing vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC. (Paras 52-52)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant Virendra Singh can be convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 34 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, finding that he acted in concert with the co-accused with a common intention to harm the deceased.
Law Points
- vicarious liability
- common intention
- constructive liability
- section 34 IPC
- section 302 IPC
