'Common Intention' Can Arise Even Moments Before: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Murder Case
|The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention and it is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime.
The Court said that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed a Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC and upheld the conviction and life sentences of A-1 to A-4 under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “…there cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.”
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the police were informed by the victim that an altercation occurred when the accused, who was riding a scooter, accidentally injured him. Shortly after, he along with others was attacked by all individuals accused. Charges were framed against the A-4 under Sections 148, 302, 307 and 324, IPC; and against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 under sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 324 read with 149, IPC. The Trial Court convicted all accused.
The Court noted, “The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.”
The Court referred the decision in Chittarmal vs. State of Rajasthan and quoted, “If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all.”
The Court observed, “Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the accused.”
The Court upheld the High Court’s decision finding A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of offences under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 IPC while observing, “…the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.