Badruddin v. State Of U.P ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

On 19 March 1976 at approximately 2 p.m., Shaukat Ali (“the deceased”) was killed outside his home following an earlier altercation connected with a dispute over the “sahan” (open yard) of the Shah Bhukhari Mosque. Four persons—Nizamuddin, Hafiz, Siddiqui and the present appellant—were alleged to have surrounded the deceased; Nizamuddin allegedly wielded a knife, while the appellant, Hafiz and Siddiqui were armed with lathis. Eyewitnesses PW 1 Mohammad Umar, PW 3 Ali Hamza and PW 5 Mohammad Hanif stated that the deceased was attacked with the knife by Nizamuddin and beaten with a lathi by Siddiqui, whereas the appellant and Hafiz struck the eyewitnesses who tried to intervene.

The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicted all four accused under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 24 July 1984 the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming both conviction and sentence. The present criminal appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India by special leave, challenging the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shared a common intention with his co-accused to murder the deceased, justifying his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Whether, notwithstanding the above, the appellant’s conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for causing hurt to the eyewitnesses was sustainable.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court undertook a close scrutiny of the evidence to determine the existence of common intention:

Lack of Overt Act against the Deceased: Neither the First Information Report nor the eyewitness testimony attributed any blow on the deceased to the appellant. All fatal injuries were inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon, whereas the appellant was armed only with a lathi.

Nature of Injuries: The post-mortem revealed exclusively incised and stab wounds consistent with a knife, negating involvement of a blunt weapon like a lathi in causing death.

Common Intention Not Established: The Court emphasised that a plan or prior meeting of minds, whether pre-arranged or spontaneous, must be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence. No evidence existed of exhortation by the appellant, nor of an intention to keep eyewitnesses at bay to facilitate the murder.

Standard of Proof: Recognising that proving common intention is “difficult,” the Court nevertheless reiterated that the prosecution bears that burden. In its absence, Section 34 IPC could not be invoked to impose vicarious liability for murder.

Accordingly, the Court found the conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC unsustainable but held that the appellant’s assault on the eyewitnesses justified his conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed in Part. The conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC were set aside; the conviction and six-month rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323/34 IPC were affirmed. As the appellant had already undergone the latter sentence, the Court ordered his immediate release unless required in any other case.

The decision’s impact is confined to the parties; it reiterates, without creating new precedent, the principle that common intention under Section 34 IPC must be proved by clear evidence and cannot be presumed merely from presence at the scene.

Badruddin v. State Of U.P .

S.S.M Quadri, J.— This criminal appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1977 dated 24-7-1984, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively for the said offences. The appellant and three others (Nizamuddin, Hafiz and Siddiqui), on their denial of charges, were tried for offences under Sections 302, 302/34 and 323/34 IPC by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, for committing the murder of Shaukat Ali (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on 19-3-1976 at 2 p.m

2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that the said persons of whom Nizamuddin was armed with a knife and the appellant, Hafiz and Siddiqui were armed with lathis, beat the deceased and killed him. PW 1 Mohammad Umar, PW 3 Ali Hamza and PW 5 Mohammad Hanif are eyewitnesses. Their statements before the Court show that Nizamuddin dealt blows with the knife and Siddiqui dealt blows with the lathi. Mohd. Umar, Mohd. Hanif and Ali Hamza tried to intervene but they were attacked with lathis by the appellant and Hafiz. It is thus clear that no overt act in regard to assaulting the deceased is attributed to the appellant. In the FIR also, no overt act is attributed to the appellant.

3. Dr G.S Chaturvedi, Senior Physician, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

“1. Incised wound oblique 2 cm × 1/4 cm × muscle-deep over left arm below parts 6 cm below lap of shoulder.

2. Incised wound oblique 4 cm × 1 cm × scalp-deep over the left side of back of the head, 12 cm pack (back) and above left ear.

3. Stab wound oblique 2 cm × 1 cm × chest cavity-deep over left back of chest, 2 cm below inferior angle of left scapula. Direction of wound from behind forward and medially cutting the muscle and soft tissues. It had also cut pleurae and lower end of left lung through and through 1 1/4 cm × 1/4 cm.

4. Incised wound vertical 1 1/4 cm × 1/4 cm × muscle-deep over left side of strive.

5. Incised wound 2 cm × 1/4 cm × muscle-deep oblique over left side back chest 24 cm below the angle of left scapula.”

(Quoted from the paper-book)

The death was caused due to the said injuries. All these injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. None of the injuries can be said to have been inflicted with a blunt weapon like a lathi.

4. The High Court noted that the relations between the deceased and the others were strained on account of a dispute with regard to “sahan” (open yard) of the Mosque of Shah Bhukhari and that after Friday's prayer, there was some altercation between the two groups; the one consisting of the said four persons and the other consisting of the deceased and PW 1. Thereafter, the appellant and the said three persons came armed with a knife and lathis, as noted above, surrounded the deceased near his door while Nizamuddin dealt blows to him with a knife, Siddiqui beat him with lathi. PWs 3 and 5 stated that the appellant, Hafiz and Siddiqui inflicted blows on the said three eyewitnesses with lathis. From the above facts, it is difficult to sustain the conclusion that there was common intention between the appellant and other persons to kill the deceased. Though establishing common intention is a difficult task for the prosecution, yet, however difficult it may be, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was a plan or meeting of mind of all the assailants to commit the offence, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. Where direct evidence is not available, it has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, it is stated that the deceased alone was assaulted by Nizamuddin with a knife and Siddiqui with a lathi. The appellant dealt blows with a lathi not to the deceased but to other witnesses. There is no direct evidence of common intention. There is no case nor evidence of exhortation by him or of the fact that with a view to keep the said witnesses away from interfering and to facilitate Nizamuddin to kill the deceased, the appellant assaulted the said witnesses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant and others shared common intention to kill the deceased Shaukat Ali. Consequently, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. However, on the facts, we confirm the conviction and sentence under Sections 323/34 IPC awarded by the courts below. As the appellant has already served out the sentence for the offence convicted, therefore, he is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1990, decided on September 21, 1998

Badruddin v. State Of U.P .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Badruddin v. State Of U.P .

Comments