2004 (3) TMI 759 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted? Whether the two courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Reliability of witness testimonies recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. Applicability of Section 34 IPC in establishing common intention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, which was affirmed by the High Court. The trial court found that the appellants, along with A-1, had a common intention to kill the deceased. The appellants held the hands of the deceased while A-1 stabbed him, leading to his death. The High Court concurred with the trial court's findings and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

2. Reliability of witness testimonies recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.:
The appellants contended that the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., were unreliable as they were interested witnesses. They argued that the investigating agency's decision to record these statements before a Magistrate indicated doubts about their credibility. However, the trial court and High Court found the presence of these witnesses at the scene of the crime credible, given their close relationship with the deceased and their proximity to the location. The courts noted that the evidence of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should be assessed with caution but not outrightly rejected. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the presence of the witnesses at the time of the incident was established and their testimonies were consistent enough to base a conviction.

3. Applicability of Section 34 IPC in establishing common intention:
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove that they shared the common intention with A-1 to commit the murder. They contended that merely holding the hands of the deceased did not indicate knowledge or intention to kill. The Supreme Court examined the facts and circumstances, noting that the appellants' actions, such as visiting the deceased's house twice at late hours and holding his hands while A-1 stabbed him, indicated a shared common intention. The Court emphasized that common intention can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances surrounding the crime. The Court referenced various judgments to highlight that the totality of circumstances must be considered to determine common intention. The Court concluded that the appellants' actions demonstrated a concerted effort with A-1, justifying their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after independently reviewing the facts and circumstances, upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, concluding that the appellants shared the common intention with A-1 to commit the murder.