2001 (3) TMI 1089 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Conviction and sentencing of the accused.
3. Acquittal of one of the accused by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 34 IPC is frequently invoked in criminal cases and has been extensively interpreted through judicial decisions. The provision addresses the liability of individuals acting in furtherance of a common intention. The court examined whether Section 34 could be invoked against the accused in this case, leading to a detailed analysis of its scope and requirements.

Section 34 reads: "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." The court emphasized that for Section 34 to apply, two conditions are indispensable: (1) the criminal act must be done by more than one person, and (2) each act must cumulatively result in the commission of the criminal offense in furtherance of the common intention of all involved.

The court clarified that the act mentioned in Section 34 does not need to be substantial; even covert acts or omissions can suffice if they are in furtherance of the common intention. The court also highlighted that mere presence at the scene without participation does not attract Section 34 unless it is proven that the presence was in furtherance of the common intention.

2. Conviction and Sentencing of the Accused:

The case involved a brutal massacre where the accused, A-1 Suresh and A-2 Ramji, were sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, which was confirmed by the High Court. The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimony of the sole survivor, PW-3 Jitendra, who identified A-1 and A-2 as the perpetrators. The evidence of PW-1 Lalji and PW-2 Amar Singh supported Jitendra's account.

The court found the evidence against A-1 and A-2 to be formidable and trustworthy. The defense's attempt to challenge the reliability of the witnesses failed. The court upheld the death penalty, emphasizing that the case fell within the "rarest of rare" category, where the lesser alternative was unquestionably foreclosed.

3. Acquittal of One of the Accused by the High Court:

The third accused, A-3 Pavitri Devi, was acquitted by the High Court, reversing the Sessions Court's conviction. The prosecution argued that her presence at the scene indicated her participation in furtherance of the common intention. However, the court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 did not attribute any overt act to her, and her mere presence near the scene was insufficient to establish common intention.

The court emphasized that for Section 34 to apply, there must be evidence of some act by the accused in furtherance of the common intention. In Pavitri Devi's case, the evidence did not support such a conclusion. The court upheld her acquittal, stating that her passive presence did not warrant a conviction under Section 34 IPC.

Judgment:

The appeals against the conviction and death penalty of A-1 Suresh and A-2 Ramji were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The appeal against the acquittal of A-3 Pavitri Devi was also dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.

Separate Judgment by R.P. Sethi, J.:

Justice R.P. Sethi concurred with the conclusions of the main judgment but provided additional insights on the interpretation of Section 34 IPC. He reiterated that no overt act is necessary to attract Section 34 if common intention is established. The principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 makes a person liable for an offense committed by another if they shared a common intention.

Justice Sethi emphasized that the existence of common intention is a question of fact and can be inferred from the circumstances. He clarified that the presence of the accused at the scene and their participation in the criminal act, even if passive, is sufficient to attract Section 34. However, in the case of Pavitri Devi, the prosecution failed to prove her common intention with the other accused, justifying her acquittal.

Conclusion:

The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of Section 34 IPC, its application, and the requirements for establishing common intention. The court upheld the death penalty for A-1 and A-2, while acquitting A-3 due to insufficient evidence of her participation in furtherance of the common intention.