Explore the detailed legal scrutiny of joint liability in criminal actions as examined by the court. The analysis focuses on the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which establishes shared criminal intent among individuals participating in a crime. The thorough examination of the legal principles surrounding common intention and shared liability provides valuable insights into criminal jurisprudence. Dive into our blog post to gain a comprehensive understanding of these critical legal concepts.
Facts
- A1 took out his gun and shot the deceased after being instigated by A3 and A4.
- The occurrence took place at about 12:45 a.m. on 21.04.2011 in the area of Baba Rasoi Dhaba, Jalandhar.
- The deceased was taken to a hospital located 3 kms from the place of occurrence.
- PW6 filed the complaint under Exhibit PL.
- Various witnesses testified in the trial, both for the prosecution and the defense.
- Recoveries, including weapons, were made during the investigation conducted by PW24.
- PW10 and PW23 turned hostile during the trial.
- The motive for the occurrence was speculated to be related to a raid conducted at a hotel belonging to the deceased and PW6.
- A3 and A4 have filed appeals to overturn the judgment of the trial court confirmed by the High Court.
- The trial court found that there was no material to suggest prior acquaintance between the accused and the deceased.
- The trial court did not specifically address the application of Section 34 IPC to A3 and A4, which was later clarified.
- Although the accused caused the deceased to fall, there was no further harm inflicted, as he did not shoot him afterward.
- The trial court extensively analyzed all the evidence presented, including witness statements.
- Amarpreet Singh Narula and Jasdeep Singh were convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC with life imprisonment and a fine.
- It was observed that the accused lived far from the crime scene and had no apparent reason to be there on the day of the incident.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was applied, indicating a lack of premeditation and the crime being a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
- The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision.
- Ramsimran Singh Makkar was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC and received additional sentences under different sections.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis
Arguments
- The learned counsel argues that the evidence of PW13 being disbelieved led to an error in applying Section 34 IPC.
- A1 has been released on pre-mature release by the State, as informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the de facto complainant.
- The court refrains from commenting on the role of A1 and A2, focusing solely on determining if the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Section 302 IPC.
- Mere statements are not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC.
- If A2 displayed the gun before A1 shot the deceased, it is reasonable to assume that A3 and A4 would have instructed A2 to shoot first.
- There is an inconsistency in the statement made by PW6, with both A3 and A4 making similar statements.
- The credibility of PW6’s presence is questionable, as he mentioned no late arrivals or complaints by the deceased.
- The appeal filed by the de facto complainant is allowed, while the appeal filed by the Accused-Appellants is dismissed.
- The State’s counsel highlighted the cogent reasoning provided by the High Court.
- It is clarified that under Section 34 IPC, physical presence is sufficient; actual physical act by the accused is not mandatory.
- Witnesses like PW10 and PW23 turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case against A3 and A4.
- Considering the circumstances, the convictions of A3 and A4 are to be set aside.
- The de facto complainant’s counsel emphasized that the accused are influential individuals, and the case falls under the offense punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Analysis
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC implies acting in concert and requires a simultaneous consensus of the minds of the persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result.
- An act in furtherance of the common intention is essential, whether overt or covert, and even an illegal omission can constitute an act under Section 34 IPC.
- Section 34 IPC creates shared liability among individuals with a common intention to commit a crime.
- Both physical and mental participation in the criminal act is required for liability under Section 34 IPC.
- Common intention should be proven by the prosecution, and it must be anterior to the commission of the crime.
- A prearranged plan and prior concert among the accused signify common intention.
- Section 34 IPC deals with constructive criminal liability, where one person’s act is infused into others based on shared intention.
- Analysis involves careful scrutiny of evidence and assessment before implicating a person under Section 34 IPC.
- Mere common intention without an action in furtherance may not attract Section 34 IPC.
- Intention in Section 34 is distinct from mens rea in criminal jurisprudence.
- The act attributed under Section 34 need not be overt, and omission can also be construed as an act in certain situations.
- The essence of Section 34 lies in the element of intention and participation, and liability is shared among individuals forming a common intention.
- When part of the evidence is disbelieved, the remaining evidence implicating under Section 34 IPC must be examined cautiously.
- Vicarious liability under Section 34 necessitates a conscious mind of bringing about a specific result in criminal action.
- Section 38 of the Indian Penal Code explains that when several persons are involved in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offenses by means of that act.
- Section 37 states that if any offense is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offense by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offense.
- A person can be vicariously responsible for the acts of others if they had a common intention to commit the acts or if the offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
- Section 34 of the IPC deals with the doing of separate acts by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, making each person liable for the result of all the acts as if they had done them themselves.
- It is emphasized that when several persons are engaged in a common purpose, lawful or unlawful, and one of them commits an offense without the knowledge or consent of the others, the others will not be implicated unless the act done was in some manner in furtherance of the common intention.
- Section 37 also specifies that the doing of any one of several acts with the intention to cooperate in the offense, makes the actor liable to be punished for the commission of the offense.
- Common intention must exist prior to the commission of the act.
- Liability under Section 34 requires a simultaneous consensus of minds to bring about a particular result.
- The common intention can even develop at the spur of the moment among multiple persons.
- Section 33 IPC treats a series of acts as a single one.
- Different punishments are provided in S. 38 for different offenses even if set in motion by different intentions.
- Section 34 requires a common intention animating the accused to do a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
- Established common intention and participation are essential for the application of Section 34.
- The presence of shared common intention justifies Section 34, overt act evidence is not mandatory.
- The court should be satisfied regarding the sharing of common intention, overt act aids this satisfaction.
- Shared common intention can be inferred from proven facts in some cases.
- Physical act and common intention may develop at the scene and not necessarily be pre-planned.
- Section 34 imposes joint responsibility for criminal acts in line with common intention.
- Clear and unimpeachable evidence is required to infer shared common intention.
- Common intention may develop during a fight but must be proven conclusively.
- The physical presence and shared common intention of accused are crucial under Section 34.
- Section 34 involves vicarious liability, intentional but no overt act still invokes the section.
- The prearranged plan of common intention is essential for Section 34 to apply.
- Proof of shared common intention can stem from direct evidence or inference from acts and circumstances.
- Individual intention furthering shared intention establishes liability under S. 34.
- Section 34 is not a substantive offense, it hinges on common intention and participation.
- Every person acting with common intention is responsible for the offense committed.
- Establishing common intention is vital before holding an accused liable under Section 34.
- A common intention can be formed at the time of the occurrence, allowing for a joint liability.
- The High Court failed to consider the significance of Section 34 IPC in relation to A3 and A4.
- The trial court’s approach regarding Section 34 IPC concerning A3 and A4 is not sustainable.
- The evidence available is insufficient to prove Section 34 IPC against A3 and A4, especially since PW13’s testimony was not accepted by the courts.
- The statement in question may have been made to attack the deceased rather than indicate a shared intention.
- Apart from the statement attributed to A3 and A4, there is no other substantial evidence incriminating them.
- The prosecution has not convincingly established the case against A3 and A4 under Section 34 IPC, unlike A1 who committed the offense.
- Had A2 acted upon the supposed statement from A3 and A4, the outcome may have been different.
Also Read: Selection and Appointment of Judicial Officers in Himachal Pradesh
Decision
- Crl. A. No.1584 of 2021 and Crl. A. No.1585 of 2021 are allowed.
- Crl. A. No.1586 of 2021 stands dismissed.
Case Title: JASDEEP SINGH @ JASSU Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2022 INSC 23)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001584-001584 / 2021
