Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by accused No.1 (Vithal) against his conviction under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment, while his co-accused (accused Nos.2,3,4) were convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant argued that since Section 34 IPC (common intention) was applied to all four accused, they should have been convicted under the same provision and given the same sentence. The Court noted that the prosecution case alleged that accused Nos.2,3,4 held the deceased while the appellant assaulted with a sickle on the head and neck, causing fatal injuries. The High Court had acquitted accused Nos.2,3,4 of murder under Section 302 IPC but convicted them under Section 304 Part-II IPC, while confirming the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court found merit in the argument that this disparity in conviction among co-accused acting with common intention raises a substantial question of law. The Court rejected other arguments regarding self-defence and innocence but expedited the hearing on the limited question of Section 34 IPC. The appeal was listed for final hearing on 13.03.2024.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Uniformity of Conviction - Where Section 34 IPC is invoked, all accused sharing common intention must be convicted under the same penal provision and awarded the same sentence; inconsistency in conviction among co-accused under the same common intention may amount to travesty of justice (Paras 7-9).
B) Criminal Law - Murder - Sections 302, 304 Part-II, 34 IPC - Disparity in Conviction - In a case where four accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the High Court convicted accused Nos.2,3,4 under Section 304 Part-II IPC but confirmed conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC; the Supreme Court found this raises a substantial question regarding the application of Section 34 IPC (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant (accused No.1) convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment should have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC like the other co-accused, given the application of Section 34 IPC, to ensure uniformity in conviction and sentence among all accused acting with common intention.
Final Decision
Leave granted. The Court expedited the hearing and listed the appeal for final hearing on 13.03.2024, limited to the question of application of Section 34 IPC and uniformity of conviction.
Law Points
- Section 34 IPC requires common intention
- if applied
- all accused must be convicted under same provision and awarded same sentence
- inconsistency in conviction among co-accused under Section 34 IPC may lead to travesty of justice
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (9) 132
Criminal Appeal No. … of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16487 of 2023)
Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal
S. Nagamuthu (for appellant)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment, challenging disparity in conviction among co-accused under Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (accused No.1) seeks conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC like co-accused, or acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC while co-accused were convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC, despite common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted all four accused under Sections 302, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. High Court acquitted accused Nos.2,3,4 of Section 302 IPC and convicted them under Section 304 Part-II IPC, but confirmed conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC. Special Leave Petitions by accused Nos.2,3,4 were dismissed by Supreme Court on 17.09.2021; Review Petition dismissed on 11.01.2024.
Issues
Whether the appellant (accused No.1) should have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, given the application of Section 34 IPC and the conviction of co-accused under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Whether disparity in conviction among co-accused acting with common intention under Section 34 IPC amounts to travesty of justice.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that if Section 34 IPC was applied, all accused should have been convicted under the same provision and awarded the same sentence; otherwise it would be travesty of justice.
Appellant also raised arguments regarding self-defence and innocence, which were rejected by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Where Section 34 IPC is applied, all accused sharing common intention must be convicted under the same penal provision and awarded the same sentence; inconsistency in conviction among co-accused under the same common intention may amount to travesty of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The argument advanced by learned senior counsel which has appealed to us is that if section 34 IPC was applied, then, each one of the accused should have been convicted under the same provision and awarded the same sentence.
Once the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were convicted under section 304 Part-II IPC and awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs.5,000/- fine each, the same conviction and sentence should have been awarded to the appellant (accused No.1), otherwise, it would amount to travesty of justice.
Procedural History
Trial Court convicted all four accused under Sections 302, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on 22.11.2016 and sentenced on 28.11.2016. Two appeals were filed before the High Court: Criminal Appeal No.100340 of 2016 by accused Nos.1 and 3, and Criminal Appeal No.100003 of 2017 by accused Nos.2 and 4. High Court by common judgment dated 03.03.2021 acquitted accused Nos.2,3,4 of Section 302 IPC and convicted them under Section 304 Part-II IPC with 10 years RI, while confirming conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC. Accused Nos.2,3,4 filed SLP Nos.6734-6735 of 2021, dismissed on 17.09.2021; Review Petition No.43274 of 2023 dismissed on 11.01.2024. Accused No.1 filed the present SLP, which was granted leave and expedited for hearing on 13.03.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 34, 302, 304 Part-II, 341, 506
