- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bengai Mandal Alias Begai Mandal v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
On the night of 13-14 July 1996, Pramila Devi was sleeping in her house while her brother-in-law, Shrikant Mahto (PW-7), slept outside. Around 2:30 a.m. he awoke to her cries and found her severely burnt by acid. Before villagers and later police and doctors, the deceased declared that the present appellant and one Mahendra Mahto (Accused 1) had entered her house; Accused 1 carried a vessel and poured its contents—acid—over her after both men’s sexual advances had been rejected. An FIR under Sections 302, 326, 448, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered the same day. After investigation, both accused were charged under Sections 302/34, 326/34, 452 and 324 IPC.
The trial court, by judgment dated 24-7-2000 and order dated 25-7-2000, convicted both men and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 along with concurrent lesser sentences. The Patna High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 20-5-2004. The present criminal appeal challenges those concurrent findings before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant shared a common intention with Accused 1 so as to sustain his conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
- If common intention was not proved, whether the facts instead attract liability under Section 304 Part II and/or Section 326 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The courts below erred in applying Section 302; at most, an offence under Section 304 Part II is made out.
- Accused 1 alone carried and poured the acid; the appellant committed no overt act.
- Without an overt act, common intention cannot be inferred merely from presence.
Respondent State's Arguments
- Supported the convictions and sentences affirmed by the High Court, contending that the appellant was rightly held liable under Section 302/34.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793 | Section 34 embodies joint liability; common intention may be inferred from circumstances. | Formed the primary doctrinal basis for evaluating whether mere presence proved shared intention. |
| Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCC 746 | Emphasised necessity of common intention among participants for Section 34 to apply. | Cited within the discussion of Girija Shankar to reinforce the requirement of shared intent. |
| Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 13 SCC 134 | Positive overt act not always essential; even omission may suffice if common intention established. | Considered when analysing whether the appellant’s silence and presence constituted participation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first restated the settled law on Section 34 IPC, emphasising that common intention is a factual inference drawn from conduct and surrounding circumstances and must be established with “a certain degree of assurance”.
Scrutinising the evidence, the Court noted that most eyewitnesses had retracted earlier statements, leaving the deceased’s dying declaration as the key piece. That declaration clearly attributed:
- Carrying the vessel and throwing acid – exclusively to Accused 1.
- Mere presence inside the house – to the appellant.
No evidence showed the appellant assisting, restraining the victim, or otherwise facilitating the act. His conduct, therefore, did not demonstrate a shared intention to kill. Consequently, liability for murder under Section 302/34 could not be sustained.
However, the appellant’s nocturnal entry with Accused 1, his knowledge of the acid, and the deceased’s prior rejection of his sexual advances proved an intention to cause grievous hurt and disfigurement. The Court held these facts sufficient for offences under Section 326 IPC and, owing to the foreseeability of death from acid burns, Section 304 Part II IPC.
Taking into account that (i) the appellant had already served seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, and (ii) death ensued after twenty-six days due to septicaemia, the Court deemed the period undergone adequate.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED — Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside; period of imprisonment already undergone treated as sufficient punishment under Sections 304 Part II and 326 IPC; appellant ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The decision reiterates that mere presence at the scene does not automatically import common intention under Section 34. It underscores the evidentiary rigour required to attribute joint liability for murder and signals that courts will carefully differentiate between varying degrees of criminal intent. The ruling affects only the parties to this case and does not create new precedent but reinforces existing principles on Section 34 IPC.
Dr. M.K Sharma, J.— By this appeal, the present appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20-5-2004 passed by the Patna High Court, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court. The trial court had by its judgment dated 24-7-2000 and order dated 25-7-2000 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, RI for a period of seven years under Section 326 read with Section 34, RI for a period of three years under Section 452 and RI for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal and as presented by the prosecution may be set out at this stage. On 14-7-1996 at 6 a.m, Shrikant Mahto (PW 7), brother-in-law of the deceased, gave a fard-e-bayan to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police wherein he stated that on 13-7-1996 after having his supper, he had gone to sleep at his darwaza (open space in front of the house). Pramila Devi, the deceased was sleeping inside the house with her son Sonu Mahto. At about 2.30 in the night, PW 7 woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased and rushed inside to find out what was happening. PW 7 saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and was tossing about on the ground. PW 7 picked up the deceased and found that the entire body and clothes of the deceased had burnt. PW 7 further noticed that blisters and rashes were erupting all over the body of the deceased and that she was writhing in pain.
3. The deceased told PW 7 that the appellant herein and one Mahendra Mahto (Accused 1) had entered into the house carrying a vessel in his hand and had thrown its contents over her as a result of which her entire body and clothes were burnt. The deceased further informed PW 7 that the appellant and Accused 1 would try to stop the deceased on her visit to market or work and ask for sexual favour. The deceased further told that she had turned down their advances and for that reason they had thrown acid over her to burn her body with the intent to kill her.
4. On hearing the commotion, some villagers assembled there and went out to look for the appellant and Accused 1, who were seen fleeing towards the east. The deceased was taken to hospital. At the hospital also, the deceased stated that acid was thrown over her by the appellant and Accused 1. After treatment at the District Hospital at Purnea for a few days, the deceased was sent back to her home where she finally died on 10-8-1996.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-e-bayan, an FIR under Sections 302, 326, 448, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on the same day at 1 p.m
6. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant and Accused 1. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the trial court framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 326 read with Section 34, Section 452 and Section 324 IPC against the appellant and Accused 1 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court by its judgment dated 24-7-2000 and order dated 25-7-2000 convicted the appellant and Accused 1 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, RI for a period of seven years under Section 326 read with Section 34, RI for a period of three years under Section 452 and RI for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the appellant herein and Accused 1 filed two separate appeals before the Patna High Court. By a common judgment and order dated 20-5-2004, the Patna High Court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the said appeals.
9. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly contended before us that the High Court as well as the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and if at all a case existed against the appellant, it was under Section 304 Part II IPC, for it was Accused 1 who had carried the vessel containing the acid and actually poured the acid on the deceased causing her death. The counsel further submitted that there was no overt act on the part of the appellant in the commission of the said offence. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State, on the other hand, supported the decisions of the courts below.
10. Before dwelling into the evidence on record and addressing the rival contentions made by the parties, we wish to reiterate the precise nature, purpose and scope of Section 34 IPC.
11. In Girija Shankar v. State of U.P (2004) 3 SCC 793 this Court, while bringing out the purpose and nature of Section 34 IPC observed in para 9, as follows:
“9. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (1977) 1 SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision.”
12. In Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134 this Court observed in para 9 as follows:
“9. Section 34 of the Penal Code envisages that ‘when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone’. The underlying principle behind the said provision is joint liability of persons in doing of a criminal act which must have found in the existence of common intention of enmity in the acts in committing the criminal act in furtherance thereof. The law in this behalf is no longer res integra. There need not be a positive overt act on the part of the person concerned. Even an omission on his part to do something may attract the said provision. But it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the question must be answered having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, the position with regard to Section 34 IPC is crystal clear. The existence of common intention is a question of fact. Since intention is a state of mind, it is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention. Therefore, courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case. However, an inference as to the common intention shall not be readily drawn; the criminal liability can arise only when such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance.
14. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, we have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also scrutinised the evidence available on record before us. On a perusal of the evidence before us, we find that all the prosecution witnesses except the official witnesses, namely, PW 8, PW 10 and PW 11 disowned the prosecution case (some completely and some to the extent of the identification of the accused persons). However, what is clearly established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that acid was thrown over the deceased on the night intervening 13-7-1996 and 14-7-1996 which caused blisters and rashes on her body and later led to her death. This fact finds corroboration in the dying declaration given by the deceased to PW 11 wherein the deceased has categorically stated that on the night intervening 13-7-1996 and 14-7-1996, Accused 1 and the appellant had entered into her house and Accused 1 poured a watery substance over her from the pot which Accused 1 was carrying in his hand.
15. The dying declaration given by the deceased comes as an important piece of evidence as it throws light on the role played by each of the accused persons at the time of the incident. After a careful reading of the dying declaration, what comes out to the fore is that it was Accused 1 who had carried (in his hand) the vessel containing the acid and who had actually thrown its contents i.e the acid on the deceased. The deceased, in her dying declaration, had attributed the acts of carrying the vessel containing the acid and throwing the contents thereof on her only to Accused 1 whereas she accused both Accused 1 and the appellant of demanding illicit body relations with her as also entering into her house.
16. From the dying declaration as on record before us, it is clearly established that the appellant was present at the time and scene of the offence. However, what needs to be ascertained is whether the appellant herein shared an intention common with Accused 1 so that he may be convicted under Section 302 IPC by invoking the aid of Section 34 IPC.
17. To find an answer to this question, we need to revert back to the dying declaration of the deceased. In her dying declaration, the deceased has imputed the acts of entry into her house and physical presence at the time of the incident to the appellant without anything more. No other overt act save as mentioned above has been imputed to the appellant by the deceased. It has also not come in evidence before us that the appellant tried to gag her mouth or overpower the deceased in any other manner so as to facilitate the pouring of acid on her by Accused 1. Had the appellant shared an intention common with Accused 1 to kill the deceased by throwing acid on her, it would have been manifest in his conduct which would certainly have been something more than him being just a mute spectator to the whole incident.
18. Thus, in absence of any active role played by the appellant or overt act being done by the appellant, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant had accompanied Accused 1 to the house of the deceased with a common intention to murder the deceased. In view thereof, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained.
19. However, keeping in mind the facts that the deceased had turned down the sexual advances made by the appellant and that he had accompanied Accused 1 who was carrying a vessel containing acid in his hand in the dead of the night and at an unearthly hour, it can be said with certainty that the appellant had the intention to inflict bodily harm on the deceased otherwise the appellant would not have accompanied Accused 1 to the house of the deceased. Since the appellant was present at the scene of occurrence and simply watched Accused 1 throwing acid on the deceased without preventing Accused 1 from doing so, clearly establishes that the appellant had intended to cause injury to and also disfigurement of the deceased and as such is liable to be punished under Section 326 IPC. Also since the appellant could be said to be possessing knowledge that the throwing of acid is likely to cause death of the deceased, a case under Section 304 Part II is also made out.
20. The appellant has already served rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Considering the facts that the death ensued after twenty-six days of the incident as a result of septicaemia and not as a consequence of burn injuries, we are of the considered view that the period already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent and direct that the appellant be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.
Alert