Balu @ Balu Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry)
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 34
Common Intention - A pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved - The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation - The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proving facts and circumstances of each case - The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 34
Common Intention - Held that common intention is seldom capable of direct proof - It is almost invariably to be inferred from proved circumstances relating to the entire conduct of all the persons and not only from the individual act actually performed - The inference to be drawn from the manner of the origin of the occurrence, the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene and the concert with which attack was made and from the injuries caused by one or some of them - The criminal act actually committed would certainly be one of the important factor to be taken into consideration but should not be taken to be the sole factor.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 326 , Section 324 , Section 34
Murder - Common Intention - Appreciation of evidence - Appellants are said to have attacked 'R' with sticks on his face -'R' sustained nasal bone fracture probably due to the attack on the face - But this cannot be said to be an act in furtherance of common intention to commit the murder of 'R' along with accused No.1 and 2 - They are random individual acts done without meeting of minds - Appellants can be held liable only for their individual acts - Considering the totality of the circumstances, conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is modified as the conviction under Section 325 IPC and the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 326 , Section 324 , Section 34
Murder - Common Intention - Appreciation of Evidence - Attack was not a premeditated one nor was there a prior concert - Initially settlement talks were on and fight started only when the accused party was informed by their person that 'A' was cut by complainant party and thus the incident arose suddenly - No doubt, common intention could develop even at the spur of the moment; but in the present case, the way the occurrence took place as depicted by the prosecution, there could not have been common intention between the accused - Appellants were not armed and admittedly they are said to have removed sticks from the bullock cart standing nearby and on the exhortation by accused No.1 - Appellants have attacked 'R' - There may be similar intention in the minds of the assailants to attack; but it cannot be said that the appellants have acted in furtherance of common intention to attract constructive liability under Section 34 IPC.
Topic(s)-Murder - Common Intention - Acquittal