SC Reiterates Active Participation Not Essential to Establish Common Intention

Must Read

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

Follow us

The Supreme Court reiterated the law of common intention while hearing the appeal against the conviction of three accused. The Court said that no actual action needs to be committed to establish the presence of common intention.

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed by three accused convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge and High Court. The Court sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine and a default stipulation. 

Here, the two deceased were returning from the market on bicycles. The appellants hid with weapons and assaulted them. One of the deceased died on spot, and the other died in the hospital in the course of treatment the same night. There were five named accused, but the Court acquitted two on the ground of benefit of the doubt.

Arguments

The Counsel representing the appellants argued that the conviction of the applicants is unjustified since the Court acquitted the other two based on the same evidence. Hence, the appellants are entitled to acquittal on the benefit of the doubt.

Further, there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. 

The incident had taken place after darkness making the identification doubtful. The Counsel relied on the cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness No. 6.

Additionally, the P.W. 1 deposed that two others informed him that the appellants are the assailants. And the prosecution had not examined either of them. It has been argued that no charge can be framed under Section 34 of IPC as there is no material to infer the common intention of appellant No. 1.

The Counsel for the State submits that the eyewitness accounts of P.W. 5, 6, 7, and 9 are consistent. The acquittal of the other two co-accused can be of no avail to the appellants because of the nature of the evidence available on them. The common intention is established by the fact that the appellants were armed and lay in wait for the two deceased who were accosted while returning from the market.

Court’s Observations

First, about the appellants’ contention about the P.W. 1, the court said that he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W 5 was an eye witness and deposed that there was enough light at the time of the occurrence. His account of the incident was further supported by the testimonies of the P.W. 6, 7, and 9. 

The deposition of P.W. 6 about the darkness is in consensual given the consistent evidence of P.W. 5, 7, and 9. 

Thus, the Court observed that they find no reason to doubt the presence of Appellants and there on the two deceased. Hence they cannot be acquitted on the grounds of the benefit of the doubt.

The Court then went into the law behind the common intention and said that in common intention the role of every single participant may be active or passive. But that is irrelevant once the common intention is established. There can hardly be any direct evidence of common intention, and it is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances. It is based on the principle of vicarious responsibility. The presence of the mental element or the intention to commit the act is important. If that is established is enough for conviction. Actual participation is not necessary. It also may be developed on spot and it is to be deducted from the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 

In the present case through the evidence on record, it can be established that Appellant No. 1 had been himself involved in the assault of the deceased. Thus, no further evidence is required about the existence of common intention.

Court’s Decision

The three-judge bench comprising of Justice RF Nariman, Justice Navin Shah, and Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The bench dismissed the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -