Holding

The appellants did not share a common intention to murder; their conviction under Section 302/34 is set aside and they are convicted under Section 324/34.

Summary

The appellants, Jagannath and others, were originally convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Shyam Narain, based primarily on the ocular testimony of PW1 who claimed the appellants chased and surrounded the victim. The High Court upheld this conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the FIR and PW1's statement sufficiently proved that the appellants assaulted the deceased with lathis, a necessary element to infer a common intention to murder. Finding that the FIR did not record any assault by the appellants and that there was no corroborative evidence of their intent to kill, the Court held that the common intention was only to cause injury, not death. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302/34 was set aside and the appellants were instead convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34, receiving two years’ rigorous imprisonment, while their conviction under Section 323/34 was upheld. The appeal was allowed in part.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the evidence of PW1, uncorroborated by the FIR, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Whether the appropriate conviction should be under Section 324 read with Section 34 for causing injuries with a deadly weapon.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323, s. 324, s. 34

Subjects

common intentionSection 34 IPCmurderculpable homicideevidenceFIRocular testimonyconviction modification

Judgment

A SH. JAGANNATH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JANUARY 12, 1995
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.)

Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Section 302/34 and 324/34--Common inten-
tion--Ocular evidence that appellants chased and surrounded deceased when
he was attacked by other accused-No role attributed to them in
C FIR-Evidence of PWI of their having assaulted deceased with
lathis--Whether their common intention was to commit murder-Held,
N~Their common intention was to cause injuries to deceased with a deadly
weapon-Conviction u/s 302/34--Not sustainable-Accused convicted u/s
324/34.
D
The three appellants had been convicted u/s 302/34 IPC, for assault-
ing the deceased with lathis. A heated altercation took place between the
deceased and the accused over dismantling of the mend which divided their
respective agricultural lands. While the altercation was going on, the three
appellants reached there armed with lathis. Trial Court convicted them
E primarily upon the ocular evidence that the appellants assaulted _the
deceased with lathis while other accused assaulted him with spear result·
ing in his death and thereby concluding that they shared the common
intention of committing the murder of deceased. In appeal, the High Court
concurred with all the findings recorded by the trial judge and dismissed
F the appeal. This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the High
Court. Both the courts took into consideration the fact that testimony of
PW 1 stood corroborated by the FIR, which he lodged with utmost dis-
patch. It was not stated in the FIR that the appellants had also assaulted
the deceased much less with lathis.

G The respondents urged that even if the testimony of PWl that the
three appella':lts assaulted the deceased could be relied upon as he did not
attribute any such role to them in the FIR still then their conviction under

H
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased should
be upheld having regard to the fact that the evidence of PWl that the
appellants had chased and surrounded the deceased when he was attacked
.
198
JAGANNATHv. STATEOFU.P. 199

by the other accused stood corroborated by the FIR and that their such A
--~ criminal acts, clearly established their common intention to commit the
murder.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

- - l
HELD : 1.1. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, it would not
have, ordinarily, been justified to disturb the same but on perusal of the
impugned judgments, it was found that both the courts below failed to
consider that PWl did not state in the FIR that the three appellant had
B

assaulted the deceased with lathis. This aspect of the matter assumed
importance for, in concluding that the three appellants shared the com-
moo intention of committing the murder of the deceased, with accused and,
c
for that matter, convicting them under Section 302 with the aid of Section
34 Indian Penal Code - while convicting the other accused u/s 302 IPC
simplicter, the trial court was much influenced by the fact that the appel-
lants assaulted him with spear resulting in this his death. [201-E-G]
D
1.2. In the FIR, the only role that was ascribed by PWl to the
appellants relating to the attack on the deceased was that when he had run
towards the village they had also chased him along with the other two
accused and surrounded him. In the FIR he did not state that the appel-
lants had also assaulted the deceased. [202-C]
E
1.3. Relying upon the sole-testimony of PWl both the courts below
took into consideration the fact that his testimony stood corroborated by
the FIR which he lodged with utmost dispatch. In view of this material
omission it would be hazardous to place implicit reliance upon the state-
ment of PWl without any corroborating evidence that the appellants had F
along with the other accused assaulted the deceased resulting in his death
and that they shared the common intention with the other accused to
commit the murder of the dec~ased. [202-D-F]

Beside the evidence of PWl of their having assaulted the deceased
with lathies, there was no other evidence to indicate that they wanted the G
;.. deceased to be done away with. Though their acts facilitated the stabbing
of the deceased by the other accused, th~re was nothing to indicate that
-- the appellants knew that he intended to kill him though they must have
anticipated that he would assault the deceased with the spear he was
carrying. Therefore, though the common intention of the appellants to H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A cause the death of the deceased had not been established beyond all
reasonable doubts, it had been conclusively established that their common
intention was to cause injuries to the deceased with a deadly weapon,
namely, spear. Therefore', they are convicted u/s 324/34 IPC and sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. [203-B-E]

B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
63 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.93 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl. A No. 255 of 1979.
c R.K. Kohli, Harjinder Singh, Varinder Kr. Sharma, Debasis Mishra,
Pramod Swamp and AS. Pundir for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal
preferred by the three appellants herein and one Badri Narayan (since
dead) challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against them
under Section 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
E referred to as the 'IPC') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda.

The story as put forth by the prosecution was that on June 7, 1978
at or about 9.00 AM. a heated altercation took place between Shyam
Narain (the deceased) and his brother Narain Dutt on the one hand and
Badri Narain and his son Swami Nath (since acquitted) on the other, over
F dismantling of the mend which divided their respective agricultural plots.
At that time Badri Narain was holding a spear and Swami Nath a Kudal
with him. While the altercation was going on, the three appellants reached
there armed with lathis. In course of the altercation when Swami Nath
attempted to attack Shyam Narain with the Kudal the latter and Narian
G Dutt tried to run away towards the village but could not succeed as the five
accused persons, including the appellants, surrounded them and started
assaulting Shyam Narain with their respective weapons. On hearing the
shouts of Shyam Narain and Narain Dutt when their brother Swami Dayal
and his son Ramashis reached there, the three appellants also assaulted
H them with lathis. As a result of the beating when Shyam Naryan dropped
JAGANNATH v. STATE OF U.P. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 201

down dead, the accused persons ran away. Swami Dayal then went to the A
~ police station and lodged an FIR whereupon a case was registered, which
ended in a chargesheet against all the five accused persons.

..
To bring home the charges levelled against them the prosecution
rested its case primarily upon the ocular version of the incident as given
out by Swami Dayal (P.W.l), Jamil Khan (P.W.2) and Narain Dutt (P.W.3) .
B
The learned trial judge, found that the claim of Jamil Khan and Narain
~ I·
Dutt that they were present at the time of the incident and, for that matter,
had witnessed the same was wholly untenable and, therefore, left their
evidence out of consideration. As regards, Swami Dayal (P.W.1), the
. learned Judge observed that find of injury on his person, as testified by thec
doctor. (P.W.5) and his prompt lodging of the F.1.R. lent sufficient cor-
roboration to his testimony to form the basis of conviction. It having,
however, appeared to the learned Judge that Swami Nath was roped in
because he was the son of Badri Narain though he did not participate in
the assault he acquitted Swami Nath, while recording the order of convic-
,.-~
D
tion and sentence against the appellants and Badri Narain. The High Court
concurred with all the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and
dismissed the appeal.

In view of the concurrent findings of fact we would not have, or-
dinarily, been justified to disturb the same but then on perusal of the E
impugned judgments we find that both the learned courts below failed to
consider that Swami Dayal did not state in the F.I.R. that the three
appellants had assaulted the deceased with lathis. This aspect of the matter
assumes import'ance for, it appears that in concluding that the three
appellants shared the common intention of committing the murder of F
Shyam Narain with Badri Narain and, for that matter, convicting them
under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. - while convicting Badri
Narain under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter - the trial court was much
influenced by the fact that the three appellants assaulted Shyam Narain
with lathis while Badri Narain assaulted him with spear resulting in his
death. G
~

From the testimony of Swami Dayal (P.W.1) we get that on the
>
fateful morning when he was going towards their plot along with his son
Ramashish he saw accused Swami Nath and Badri Narain having heated
arguments with his brothers Shyam Narayan and Narian Dutt regarding the H
I

--~

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A dismantling of the mend. At that time he found Badri Narain holding a
spear and Swami Narain a Kudal, but his brothers unarmed. While they ~::
were on the plot and the arguments were going on the other three accused
(the three appellants herein) reached there with lathis. All of them then
started abusing Shyam N"arain and Narain Dutt. In the meantime Swami

B
Nath attacked Shyam Narain with the Kudal but as he retreated it did not
hit him. Then, as Shyam Narain and Narain Dutt tried to flee towards the
village, all the accused persons attacked Shyam Narain. According to
-r
..
P.W.1, Badri Narain assaulted him with spear and the three appellants with
the lathis. He next spoke about the assault on him and his son by the three
appellants and Badri Narain. In the F.l.R. however, the only role that was
c ascribed by P.W.1 to the three appellants relating to the attack on Shyam
Narain was that when he had ran towards the village they had also chased
him along with the other two accused and surrounded him. To put it
negatively, in the F.l.R. he did not state that the appellants had also
assaulted the deceased much less with lathis.
v As already stated in relying upon the sole testimony of P.W. 1 both x--.

the learned courts below took into consideration the fact that his testimony
stood corroborated by the F.l.R. which he lodged with utmost dispatch. In
that context, it was expected, in the fitness of things, that if really the
appellants had assaulted the deceased Swami Dayal, P.W. 1 would have
E certainly mentioned that fact in the F.l.R. In view of this material omission
it would be hazardous to place implicit reliance upon the statement of P.W.
1 without any corroborating evidence that the appellants had along with
Badri Narain assaulted Shyam Narain resulting in his death; and to hold,
as a corollary thereto, that they shared the common intention with the other
F accused to commit the murder of Shyam Narain.

It was, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that even if the
testimony of Swami Dayal that the three appellants assaulted the deceased
could not be relied upon as he did not attribute such role to them in the
G F.l.R. still then their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I-

the 1.P.C. for committing the murder of Shyam Narain should .!'e upheld
"""-
having regard to the fact that the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellants had
chased and surrounded the deceased when he was attacked by the other .
accused stood corroborated by the F.I.R. and that their such criminal acts,
JI clearly established their common intention to commit the murder.
JAGANNATH v. STATE OFl'.P. [M.K. MtJKHERJEE, J.) 203

Undoubtedly the above criminal acts of the three appellants, which A
must be held to be conclusively proved in view of the concurrent findings
of the Learned Courts below, clearly indicate that they shared some
common intention with the other accused but then the question is whether
their common intention was to commit the murder; Besides the evidence
of P.W.l of their having assaulted the deceased with lathis - which we have
B
found to be unacceptable - there is no other evidence, to indic..1te, that they
wanted the deceased to be done away with. It cannot be gainsaid, however,
that their acts facilitated stabbing of the deceased by Badri Narain but
there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the appellants knew that he
intended to kill him though they must have anticipated that he would
assault the deceased with the spear that he was carrying. In that view of C
the matter we conclude that though the common intention of the appellants
to cause the death of Shyam Narain has not been established beyond all
reasonable doubts, it has been conclusively established that their common
intention was to cause injuries to the deceased with a deadly weapon,
namely spear.
D
In the result the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life for causing
the death of Shyam Narain are set aside and instead they are convicted
under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years each. Their other conviction under E
Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, along with the sentence of six months
each thereunder, is upheld as it does not suffer from any infirmity. The
sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is thus allowed in part.

A.G. Appeal allowed.