In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the principles of joint liability and common intention in criminal cases. The case delves into the actions of multiple individuals with regards to a tragic incident. Stay informed about the outcome and implications of this ruling on joint liability and common intention in criminal law.
Facts
- Charges were framed against A-4 under sections 148, 302, IPC [on two counts], sections 307 [on three counts] and 324, IPC; and against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 under sections 148, 302 read with 149 [on two counts], 307 read with 149 [on three counts] and 324 read with 149, IPC.
- The Trial Court found the appellants and A-5 guilty, convicted them for the enumerated offences, and sentenced them accordingly.
- Deceased no.2 passed away on 10 January, 1998 due to the gunshot injury during the incident.
- The outcome of the appeal from the conviction and sentence was discussed, addressing the possibility of A-4’s death during the appeal process and the claim of juvenility for A-1 and A-3 on the date of the offense.
- All accused were sentenced to life in prison
- The appeal was filed by appellants A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and a co-accused A-5
- Judgment and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge were mostly upheld
- A-4 was convicted under sections 148, 302, 307 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act
- A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 were convicted under sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC
- A-5 was acquitted while A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 convictions and sentences were maintained by the High Court
Also Read: Land Dispute: Decree Quashed by the Supreme Court of India
Issue
- The High Court did not address the difference between common object and common intention when changing the appellants’ conviction from section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
- The lack of brick bat injuries on certain individuals and victims indicates the absence of A-1, A-2, and A-3 at the crime scene.
Also Read: Custodial Torture and Legal Accountability: Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
Arguments
- The learned counsel for the appellants questioned the integrity of the genesis of the case.
- There was a highlighted absence of any reference to a 7 of 16 finger injury in the medical records of P.W.3.
- The argument by the counsel was focused on an apparent error of judgment in convicting the appellants.
- Learned counsel for the respondent denied the grounds taken by the appellant in the appeal.
- Support was extended to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
- The Trial Court’s decision was affirmed by the High Court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitral Award Dispute
Analysis
- The propensity of a human being in criminal cases is discussed.
- Individuals tend to undermine their role while exaggerating the role of the assailant.
- This behavior is common and can affect the outcome of the case.
- The appellants acted with a common intention to kill in retaliation for a previous altercation involving P.W.3 slapping A-1.
- Witness testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 support the sequence of events and the appellants’ involvement.
- The absence of examination of independent witnesses does not fatally impact the prosecution’s case if eyewitness accounts are reliable.
- Medical evidence confirms the serious/fatal injuries inflicted upon the victims by the appellants.
- The appellants arrived armed at the crime scene and launched a coordinated attack on the victims.
- The distinction between common intention and common object is discussed, with common intention requiring a prearranged plan.
- The appellants’ claim of self-defence by A-4 is disputed based on testimonies and evidence.
- The High Court’s observation regarding the need for independent witnesses is reiterated.
- Injured witnesses’ testimonies are deemed reliable unless substantial contradictions exist.
- The appellants’ failure to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice supports upholding their conviction.
- Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator equally liable on the principle of joint liability if they participated in the offence
- Common intention between co-perpetrators is necessary for Section 34 to apply, indicating community of purpose and design
- Common intention can be inferred from facts proved since direct evidence may not be available
- Examination of independent witnesses is not always indispensable for prosecution case
- Antecedents, conduct, weapon used, and purpose of the attack are relevant in determining common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Accused can be individually liable if they are the main perpetrator, without invoking Section 34
- Reliable evidence from injured eyewitnesses can be sufficient even without independent witness testimony
- Difference and overlapping nature of section 149 and section 34 IPC are elaborated in various court decisions
- Section 34 IPC implies joint liability when a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention
- Liability for one’s acts and joint liability under Section 34 are distinct concepts
- The High Court’s decision finding A-1, A-2, and A-3 guilty of offences under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 thereof
- The prosecution’s case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness based on testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5
Decision
- The sole issue presented in the appeal was answered in the negative.
- The appeal lacked any merit and is dismissed.
Case Title: BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2024 INSC 738)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001389-001389 – 2012
