Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave against the concurrent conviction of four accused persons for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for causing simple injuries under Section 323 read with Section 34. The case arose from a trivial incident on February 13, 1964, when a dispute over a game of guchhi between two children led to a scuffle. The accused, who were relatives, protested against the beating of one child and attacked the deceased and a witness with lathis. The deceased sustained five injuries, including a fatal head injury, and died on the way to hospital. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The Supreme Court granted special leave limited to the question whether the offence disclosed was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or some lesser offence. The appellants contended that the case fell under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, while the State supported the High Court's conviction for murder. The Court examined the evidence and noted that there was no previous enmity between the parties, the quarrel was over a trifling incident, and the injuries apart from the fatal head injury were not serious. The High Court had found that the common intention of the accused was only to give a severe beating. The Supreme Court held that the common intention was to cause grievous hurt, not murder. Since the prosecution evidence did not establish which accused inflicted the fatal blow, no accused could be held personally liable for murder, and vicarious liability under Section 34 was limited to the common intention of causing grievous hurt. Accordingly, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each accused to five years rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Scope of Section 34 IPC - Fatal Act Exceeding Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 302, 325 - The accused were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC after a fatal head injury was caused during a quarrel arising from a trifling incident. The High Court had found that the common intention of the accused was only to give a severe beating, and there was no previous enmity. The Supreme Court held that when the common intention is limited to causing grievous hurt, an accused who exceeded that intention and inflicted a fatal blow is personally liable for the fatal injury, but the other accused are liable only for injuries caused in furtherance of the common intention, not for the fatal act. Consequently, once the common intention was only to cause grievous hurt, conviction could not be under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Held that the conviction was altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Constructive Liability - Proof of Identity of Fatal Blow Giver - Downgrading Offence When Perpetrator Unidentified - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 325, 34 - The prosecution evidence did not indicate which of the accused appellants had inflicted the fatal head blow on the deceased. Since no accused could be held personally responsible for the fatal injury and the common intention was not to commit murder, vicarious liability under Section 34 could only extend to the offence of causing grievous hurt. The Supreme Court held that as it was not possible on the material on record to find out which accused gave the fatal blow, there was no escape from the conclusion that each of the four accused could only be guilty of the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Conviction was altered accordingly, and the appeal was allowed to that extent. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the offence disclosed was murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or some lesser offence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court altered the conviction of each accused from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for five years, to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 323/34 IPC. The appeal was partly allowed.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC is limited to the shared plan
- where common intention is only to cause grievous hurt
- fatal injury by one accused exceeding common intention is personal to that accused
- when perpetrator fatal blow cannot be identified
- all accused liable only for Section 325/34 IPC not 302/34
- trifling quarrel and lack of previous enmity negate intention to murder
