Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the conviction of four appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum, for offences under Sections 449 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on the night of 14 November 1950, the appellants entered the house of the victim while he was sleeping on the verandah. One appellant pressed the victim's knees, two others pressed his chest and hands, and the fourth inflicted an injury on his neck with a dagger. The victim woke up, raised a shout, and caught one of the assailants, while the other three escaped. The injury did not prove fatal. Information was lodged at the police station, and the victim was sent to hospital for treatment. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilt on both charges. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the principal accused to rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307/34 and two years under Section 449, and the other three to three years under Section 307/34 and two years under Section 449. The High Court of Calcutta summarily dismissed the appeal but granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. Two legal issues were raised before the Supreme Court. First, whether conviction under Section 449 IPC can be sustained unless murder has actually been committed. Second, whether a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable in law. The appellants' counsel argued that the words "in order to the committing" in Section 449 presuppose completion of the intended offence, and that Section 307 punishes only the individual act of a person with specified intention or knowledge, not a joint act. The State supported the convictions. The Court rejected both contentions. It examined Sections 449, 450, 451, 454, 457 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the phrase "in order to" means "with the purpose of". The graded punishments for house trespass depend on the nature of the offence intended to be committed, irrespective of whether that offence was actually committed. Therefore, the fact that murder was not actually committed did not affect applicability of Section 449. On the second issue, the Court explained that under Section 34 IPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Accordingly, once common intention was established, each appellant was deemed to have committed the entire criminal act, including using the dagger. Since death did not result, the act fell under Section 307 IPC. The charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 was held sustainable. The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - House Trespass - "In order to" Means "With the Purpose of" - Completion of Intended Offence Not Required for Section 449 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 449, 450, 451, 454, 457, 448 - The appellants argued conviction under Section 449 IPC required actual commission of murder; the court examined graded punishments for house trespass and held the phrase "in order to" denotes purpose, and whether the purpose was accomplished is irrelevant; therefore absence of actual murder did not preclude conviction under Section 449. Held that conviction under Section 449 is sustainable even if murder not committed (Paras not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Constructive Liability for Attempt to Murder - Section 34 IPC Makes Each Co-Accused Liable for Entire Criminal Act - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 307, 300 - The appellants contended a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 is unsustainable because Section 307 punishes individual act; the court reasoned that once a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, each is treated as having committed the entire act; thus each co-accused is deemed to have inflicted dagger injury, and since death did not result, each falls under Section 307. Held that charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 is valid (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction under Section 449 IPC requires murder to have actually been committed; whether a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable in law
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences under Sections 449 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code upheld
Law Points
- in order to means with the purpose of
- completion of intended offence not required for Section 449 IPC
- Section 34 IPC makes each co-accused liable for entire criminal act
- charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 is sustainable
- graded punishments for house trespass depend on nature of intended offence
