Murder Conviction Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court Acquits Two Accused Due to Lack of Common Intention

The case of Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab involved a criminal appeal against convictions under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants, who were convicted of life imprisonment, argued that they were wrongly convicted under Section 34 IPC without sufficient evidence of a shared common intention to commit the offense. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in applying the principle of common intention and whether the conviction was legally sustainable.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on April 21, 2011, at approximately 12:45 AM near Baba Rasoi Dhaba, Jalandhar. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, a hotel owner, had a long-standing dispute with the accused regarding a police raid on his business, which he believed was instigated by them. This altercation led to the attack, which ultimately resulted in his death.

During the altercation:

The deceased was allegedly held and grappled by some of the accused.
One of the accused (A1) pulled out a gun and shot the deceased.
Another accused (A2) was seen brandishing a weapon before the firing.
The appellants (A3 and A4) allegedly made a statement, “What are you seeing now?”, which the prosecution claimed was an act of instigation.

After the incident, the victim was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was filed under Section 302 IPC for murder. During the trial, the prosecution sought to establish the liability of all four accused under Section 34 IPC, which assigns equal liability to all individuals involved in a premeditated act with common intention.

The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. This conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Arguments of the Appellants (Accused 3 and 4)

The appellants contended that they had no prior knowledge that the main accused (A1) was carrying a gun.
Their presence at the scene and the alleged statement did not establish an active role in the crime.
The prosecution relied solely on witness testimonies, which were inconsistent and contained multiple contradictions.
There was no direct evidence of pre-arranged common intention among all the accused.
The trial court misapplied the doctrine of vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Punjab)

The prosecution maintained that the accused had a prior meeting of the minds and collectively decided to eliminate the victim.
The mere presence of the accused and their verbal statement at the scene were sufficient to infer common intention.
The accused played an active role in instigating the shooting, making them liable under Section 34 IPC.
Eyewitness testimony confirmed that the accused were involved in the attack.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

1. Lack of Evidence of Common Intention

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence showing that the appellants (A3 and A4) had a premeditated plan to commit the crime.

“There is no evidence on record to establish that A3 and A4 were aware of A1’s possession of a firearm or had a common intention to kill the deceased.”

2. Mere Presence at the Crime Scene is Insufficient

The Court clarified that being present at a crime scene does not automatically imply guilt under Section 34 IPC.

“A person’s presence at the crime scene, without further participation or evidence of premeditation, does not amount to common intention.”

3. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The Court found that witness statements contained inconsistencies. The complainant initially stated that A3 and A4 made a remark before the shooting but later added that they were actively involved in the assault.

“Inconsistencies and improvements in witness testimonies create doubt regarding the role of A3 and A4 in the alleged crime.”

4. Section 34 IPC and Vicarious Liability

The Court reiterated that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence that all accused shared a pre-arranged plan.

“Mere association with the main accused or making a casual statement does not constitute common intention under Section 34 IPC.”

5. Failure to Prove Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

The Court observed that the prosecution had not established mens rea against the appellants.

“There is no evidence that A3 and A4 had prior knowledge of the firearm or that they encouraged the shooting.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Accused 3 and 4 and ordered their acquittal. The key takeaways from the judgment are:

The presence of an accused at a crime scene is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC.
Statements made in the heat of the moment do not automatically establish common intention.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A3 and A4 shared the intention to commit the crime.
The conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC was quashed, and the accused were acquitted.

This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal liability under Section 34 IPC cannot be imposed without clear and unambiguous evidence of common intention.

Petitioner Name: Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Place Of Incident: Jalandhar, Punjab, India.
Judgment Date: 07-01-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: jasdeep-singh-@-jass-vs-state-of-punjab-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-01-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by M.M. Sundresh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category