Case title:
State of Rajasthan Vs Gurbachan Singh
Date of Order:
7th December 2022
Bench:
Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Parties:
Appellant- The State of Rajasthan
Respondents- Gurbachan Singh & Ors.
SUBJECT
According to the Supreme Court, "common intention" for the purposes of Section 34 IPC can develop spontaneously and in the course of the event.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860-
According to the doctrine of joint liability, a co-offender who had taken part in the crime was equally responsible. The co-accused must have a common intention for Section 34 to be applicable, which entails a shared goal and plan. Common intention can be created on the go and while the event is happening. Common purpose is inherently a psychological reality; hence there will not typically be any direct evidence. Therefore, it is usually necessary to deduce from the established facts whether or not there is a shared aim. Only when the court can rule that the accused must have anticipated the outcome that followed in furtherance of the common aim can constructive intention be determined.
OVERVIEW
The prosecution's case against Gurbachan Singh and the other defendants, in this case, was that they arrived equipped with a "lathi," "Toka," "axe," and "gandasi," respectively, and assaulted and injured a man named Teja Singh, who passed away on the scene. According to Section 302 IPC, the Trial Court found them guilty of murder. Due to the fact that Gurbachan Singh was only equipped with a "lathi" and had only attacked Teja Singh's feet, the High Court only partially upheld his appeal. They reasoned that it was impossible to infer a common motive from his actions.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the High Court's opinion that due to the less severe actions of Gurbachan Singh, a proper common intention could not be established?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
In an appeal, the Supreme Court dissented from the High Court's conclusion and stated that Gurbachan Singh's behaviour and actions showed a shared desire to harm Teja Singh and bring about his death.
Reconsidering the evidence presented, the court noted that regardless of their role, all of the accused, including Gurbachan Singh, would be liable for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. As a result, it upheld the appeal and reinstated Gurbachan Singh's Section 302 IPC conviction.
CONCLUSION
Gurbachan Singh was to turn himself in within the next 21 days to serve the remaining time. Suppose Gurbachan Singh does not surrender within the specified time. In that case, the authorities or court will take the appropriate legal measures to imprison Gurbachan Singh so he can serve the remainder of his sentence.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
