1964 (9) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Construction of s. 34 with s. 301 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Construction of s. 34 with s. 301 of the Indian Penal Code
The case involved the interpretation of s. 34 and s. 301 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court found that the common intention of the accused was to kill a specific individual, but due to a mistaken identity, another person was killed. Section 34 imposes liability on individuals for acts done in furtherance of a common intention, and it was established that the accused acted in concert pursuant to a pre-arranged plan. The application of s. 34 requires a united criminal behavior resulting in a punishable offense, and the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention. The judgment discussed various judicial precedents defining the elements necessary for invoking s. 34, emphasizing the need for a pre-arranged plan and the difficulty in proving individual intentions directly.

Issue 2: Impact of s. 301 of the Indian Penal Code
The judgment also analyzed the impact of s. 301 on s. 34. Section 301 deals with the transfer of malice or motive, attributing the intention of causing death to the offender even if the actual victim is different from the intended target. However, in the present case, the accused shot at a specific person with the intention of killing him, albeit under a misapprehension of identity. As a result, the conditions of s. 301 were not met, and the accused were found liable under s. 302, read with s. 34, of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment clarified that s. 301 did not apply in this scenario due to the specific circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that all the accused were liable under s. 302, read with s. 34, of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed based on the finding that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention, leading to the criminal act resulting in the death of an unintended victim due to mistaken identity. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing common intention and the transfer of malice, emphasizing the specific application of these provisions to the facts of the case.