# I S.C.R. I 08 VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - **Citation:** [2017] 1 S.C.R. 108 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2017-01-04 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.1452 of 2010 - **Bench:** Dipak Misra, R. F. Nariman - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-s-c-r-i-08-vijendra-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-31736 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Common intenlion - Enmity between accused and his family and the prosecution witnesses - On the fateful day, murder of nephew of PW I, at his tube well - PW 2, NS and PW 3 heard sound of gun fire from inside the shed of the tube well - On reaching the place of incident, they saw appellant accused along with others, ar111ed with weapons comilig out of the shed - Thereafter, accused fled away - FIR lodged by PW I - Medical evidence that death of deceased due to gunshot injury - Conviction uls. 302134 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, by courts below - Thereafter, death of two accused - On appeal, held: Evidence in its entirety clearly shows that the accused persons armed with weapons were present in the shed, they were seen going away and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood - Accused-appellants had accompanied other accused persons who were arnled with gun and they themselves carried lat hi and ha/lam respectively - Carrying of weapons, arrival at a particular place and at the same 'lime, entering into the shed and murder of the deceased attract constructive liability uls .. 34 - No blackening or scorching around .tlie wound, would noi belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun - Further, the testimony of PWs 1-3 about the incident cannot be discredited - They satisfy the test of scrutiny and cautious approach - Nonexa111ination of certain witnesses would not effect the prosecution case - Thus, order passed by the courts below as regards appellant M upheld - As regards appellant V, he having remained in custody for 111ore than the maximum period, is released from the custody - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - ss. 7-A, 20(amended) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of · Children) Rules, 2007. s. 34 - Co111111on intention - Applicability of s. 34 - Held: 108 V!JENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 109 Applicability of s. 3./ is a question of fact and is to be ascertained A from the evidence brought on record - Common intention can be conceived immediately or at the time of offence and is determined on the facts. Evidence - Medical evidence that one gun shot injury attributed to pistol - However, no blackening or scorching around·-. B. the gunshot wound - Credibility of the prosecution case - Held: Doctor stated that there is no blackening or scorching around the wound, but that would not belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun - Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was caused by gunshot injury. Dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1452 of 2010 and disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 1448 of 2010, the Court HELD: 1.1 The accused-appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It has come in evidence of PW-2 that the accused M was armed with lathi and accused VS was •1rmed with a ballam and they were in the company of other accused. When the evidence in its entirety is studiedly scrutinized, it clearly shows that the accused persons were present in the shed, they were seen going away and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. The witnesses specifically stated about the weapons being carried by the accused persons. It was submitted that the prosecution story rests on the gun shot injury but there is no evidence with regard to injury caused by the lathi or ballam. It is relevant to state that cartridges from the spot were recovered arid PW-6 Doctor who conducted the post mortem found gunshot wound. There was no blackening or scorching around the wound. True it is that the doctor stated that there was no blackening or scorching around the wound, but that would not belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun. He, opined that the. death of the deceased was caused by gunshot in.iury. [Para 13] [120-F-G; 121-AI 1.2 Whether the crime ·is committed in furtherance of common intention or not, would depend upon the material brought on recor ## Text _Characters 0–39,915 of 57,691. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._ A B c D E F G H (2017] I S.C.R. I 08 VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1448 of20 I 0) JANUARY 04, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Common intenlion - Enmity between accused and his family and the prosecution witnesses - On the fateful day, murder of nephew of PW I, at his tube well - PW 2, NS and PW 3 heard sound of gun fire from inside the shed of the tube well - On reaching the place of incident, they saw appellant accused along with others, ar111ed with weapons comilig out of the shed - Thereafter, accused fled away - FIR lodged by PW I - Medical evidence that death of deceased due to gunshot injury - Conviction uls. 302134 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, by courts below - Thereafter, death of two accused - On appeal, held: Evidence in its entirety clearly shows that the accused persons armed with weapons were present in the shed, they were seen going away and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood - Accused-appellants had accompanied other accused persons who were arnled with gun and they themselves carried lat hi and ha/lam respectively - Carrying of weapons, arrival at a particular place and at the same 'lime, entering into the shed and murder of the deceased attract constructive liability uls .. 34 - No blackening or scorching around .tlie wound, would noi belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun - Further, the testimony of PWs 1-3 about the incident cannot be discredited - They satisfy the test of scrutiny and cautious approach - Nonexa111ination of certain witnesses would not effect the prosecution case - Thus, order passed by the courts below as regards appellant M upheld - As regards appellant V, he having remained in custody for 111ore than the maximum period, is released from the custody - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - ss. 7-A, 20(amended) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of · Children) Rules, 2007. s. 34 - Co111111on intention - Applicability of s. 34 - Held: 108 V!JENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 109 Applicability of s. 3./ is a question of fact and is to be ascertained A from the evidence brought on record - Common intention can be conceived immediately or at the time of offence and is determined on the facts. Evidence - Medical evidence that one gun shot injury attributed to pistol - However, no blackening or scorching around·-. B. the gunshot wound - Credibility of the prosecution case - Held: Doctor stated that there is no blackening or scorching around the wound, but that would not belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun - Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was caused by gunshot injury. Dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1452 of 2010 and disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 1448 of 2010, the Court HELD: 1.1 The accused-appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It has come in evidence of PW-2 that the accused M was armed with lathi and accused VS was •1rmed with a ballam and they were in the company of other accused. When the evidence in its entirety is studiedly scrutinized, it clearly shows that the accused persons were present in the shed, they were seen going away and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. The witnesses specifically stated about the weapons being carried by the accused persons. It was submitted that the prosecution story rests on the gun shot injury but there is no evidence with regard to injury caused by the lathi or ballam. It is relevant to state that cartridges from the spot were recovered arid PW-6 Doctor who conducted the post mortem found gunshot wound. There was no blackening or scorching around the wound. True it is that the doctor stated that there was no blackening or scorching around the wound, but that would not belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun. He, opined that the. death of the deceased was caused by gunshot in.iury. [Para 13] [120-F-G; 121-AI 1.2 Whether the crime ·is committed in furtherance of common intention or not, would depend upon the material brought on record and the appreciation thereof in proper perspective. Facts of two cases cannot be regarded as similar. Common intention can be gathered from the-circumstances that are brought c D F G on record by the prosecution. Common intention can be conceived H 110 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 1 S.C.R. immediately or at the time of offence. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 IPC is a question of fact and is to be ascertained from the evidence brought on record. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the fact of the case and circumstances of the situation. Whether in a proved situation all the individuals concerned have developed only simultaneous and independent intentions or whether a simultaneous consensus of their minds to bring about a particular result can be said to have been developed and thereby intended by all of them, is a question that has to be determined on the facts. [Para 24] [125-D-F] 1.3 Absence of any injury caused by a lathi cannot be the governing factor to rule out Section 34 IPC. It is manifest from the evidence that the accused-appellants had accompanied the other accused persons who were armed with gun and they themselves carried lathi and ballam respectively. The carrying of weapons, arrival at a particular place and at the same time, entering into the shed and murder of the deceased definitely attract the constructive liability as engrafted under Section 34· IPC. !Para 25] [126-B] 1.4 The submission that all the eyewitnesses are riilated to the deceased BP and they being interested witnesses, their version requires scrutiny with care, caution and circumspection and when their evidence is scanned with the said parameters, it does not withstand the said test for which the case set forth by the prosecution gets corroded and the principle of beyond reasonable doubt gets shattered, cannot be accepted for PWs-1 to 3 have deposed in detail about the previous enmity between the parties, their presence at the spot, the weapons the accused persons carried, their proximity to the shed and establishment of the identity of all the four accused. They have also testified as regards the deceased lying in a pool of blood. There is no reason why they would implicate the appellants for the murder. of their relation leaving behind the real culprit. That apart, nothing has been elicited in the cross-exa.mination for which their testimony can be discredited. [Para 26] [126-C-E] 1.5 There is no material on record to come to the conclusion that PW-3 could not have accompanied PW-2 while he was going VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 111 to the shed near the tube-well. What has been elicited in the A cross-examination is that he was not going daily· to the tube-well. The Court cannot be oblivious of the rural milieu. No adverse inference can be drawn that he was not going daily and his . testimony that he had accompanied PW-2 on the fateful day should be brushed aside. Thus, his evidence is neither doubtful nor create any suspicion in the mind. Thus, the real test is whether the testimony of PWsl to 3 are intrinsically reliable or not. The same is scrutinized and there is no hesitation in holding that they satisfy the test of careful scrutiny and cautious approach. They can be relied upon. [Paras 28, 29] [127-G-H; 128-A-B] 1.6 It is noticeable from the decision of the trial court and the High Court, reliance has been placed on the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and their version has been accepted. They have treated PW-2 and PW-3 as natural witnesses who have testified that the accused persons were leaving the place after commission of the offence and they had seen them quite closely. The submission that they were interested witnesses and their implication is due to inimical disposition towards accused persons has not been accepted. It has come out in evidence that witnesses and the accused persons belong to the same village. The submission that non-examination of NS and other two persons who had been referred to by PW-2 affects the prosecution version or creates any doubt in the mind of the Court, cannot be accepted. Such a conclusion is arrived at since the witnesses examined by the prosecution are trustworthy and the court can safely act on their testimony. There is no justification to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution. [Paras 30, 32] [128-C-E; 129G; 130-A] 1.7 If a person is not present at the spot, the question of common intention does not arise. If the common intention is established, an accused can be convicted. The appellant MS had gone with other accused persons, who were carrying pistols and ballam. He himself was carrying a lathi, and appellant VS was carrying a ballam and accompanying others. Their intention was to go to the shed where the deceased was studying because of · availability of the electric light, has been established. Common intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances and B c D E F G H 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .. , [2017] 1 S.C.R. A in the instant case, the same is clearly discernable. [Para 34) [130-F-HJ 1.9 A report was called for appellant-VS and he has been found to be a juvenile being 16 .years 3 months 10 days old on the date of offence. The said report has gone unchallenged and the B State, has fairly stated that he was a juvenile on the date of offence. c D E F The Court relying on S.ection 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the amendments introduced in Section 20 of the 2000 Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,2007, remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board with the observation that if he had been detained for more than the maximum period for which a juvenile may be confined to a special home, the Board would release him from custody forthwith. As the appellant-VS remained in custody for more than the maximum period for which he could have been confined t!I a special home, while sustaining the conviction, he is released from custody. [Para 36) [131-B-EJ Pandurang and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC lfi;·; [1955) SCR 1083 - relied on. G .. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [20051 1 SCR 1019; Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 211 : 12009] 7 SCR 623; Suresh Sakharam Nangare v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 249 : [2012] 7 SCR 1186 ; Jai Bhagwan and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 102; Bijendra Bhagat v. State of U1tarakahand (2015) 13 SCC 99; Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 848; Harshadsingh Pahe/vansingh Thakore v. Sta(e of Gujarat (1976) 4 SCC 640 : [1977] 1 SCR 626; Jitendra Singh v. State of U/tar Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 193;Lallan Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 sec 268 : 120021 4 Suppl. SCR 188; Goudappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 675 : [2013] 4JiCJl~47; Kirpa/ and Bhopal v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 706; Bharwad Mepa Dana aiid Anr. H . v. The State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 289 : [1960] SCR 172; Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675' Karlik Malhar v. State of VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 113 Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614 : (1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 239; A Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCG 327; State of HP. v. Gian Chand (2001) 6 sec 71; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 145; Dahari and Ors. v. State of U.P (20li) 10 SCC 256 : (2012] 8 SCR 1219; Manjit B Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr (2013) 12 SCC 746 : [2013] 11 SCR 107; Joy,inder Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 335 : [2013] 11 SCR 446 - referred to. Case Law Reference c [2005] 1 SCR 1019 referred to Para 7 [2Q09] 7 SCR 623 referred to Para 7 [2012] 7 SCR 1186 referred to Para 7 (1999) 3 sec 102 referred to Para 7 D (2015) 13 sec 99 referred to Para 7 [1962] Suppl. SCR 848 referred to Para8 11'1771 1 SCR 626 referred to Para8 (201Jl 11 sec 193 referred to Para8 · (1955] SCR 1083 relied on Para 18 E [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 188 referred to Para 22 12Ql3] 4 SCR 547 referred to Para 23 AIR 1954 SC 706 referred to Para 24 [196fl] SCR 172 referred to Para 24 F (1981) 3 sec 675 referred to Para 26 -[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 239 referred to Para 26 (1983) 3 sec 327 referred to Para 27 (2001) 6 sec 11 referred to Para 30 G (2001) ~sec 145 referred to Para 31 (2012] 8 SCR 1219 referred to Para,31 [2013) 11 SCR 107 referred to Para 31 (2013] 11 SCR 446 referred to Para 31 H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B c D E F G H No. 1448 of2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. I 019 of 1981. WITH Crl. A. No. 1452 of2010. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. for the Appellant. R. K. Dash, Sr. Adv., Ms. Archana Singh,Abhisth Kumar,Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. Present appeals, by special leave. call in question the defensibility of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. I 019 of 1981 whereby the Division Bench of the High Cou1t has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 308of1979 whereunderthe appellants along with two others stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (!PC) and visited with the sentence of life imprisonment. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary to be adumbrated for the adjudication of the instant appeals are that there was enmity between the accused, Dharam Pal and his family on the one side and Charan Singh, PW-I, on the other. Charan Singh, PW1, Gajpal, PW-2, Tedha, PW-3 and Nepal Singh belong to village Dastoi, to which the deceased, Badan Pal, the nephew of Charan Singh as well as the accused persons belong. As the prosecution story further unfurls, sometime prior to the occurrence, Gaje Singh, brother of the accused, Dharam Pal, was murdered and Charan Singh, PW- I, along with others had faced trial for his murder and eventually got acquitted. The occurrence leading to the murder of Badan Pal took place in the evening hours of 26.03.1979. Badan Pal was a student and he used to stay overnight at his tube-well which had a shed in the jungle of village Sarva. On the date of occurrence, he was at the aforesaid tube-well. Gajpal, PW-2, and Nepal Singh in the fateful evening while carrying the meals for Badan Pal, on their way, met Tedha, PW-3, who wanted to irrigate his fields from the aforesaid tube-well. All of them reached near the VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DIPAK MISRA, J.] said tube-well about 7.30 p.m. when they heard the sound of a gun fire from inside the "kotha" (shed) of the said tube-well. They reached the place without loss of any time and noticed that all the four accused, namely, Dhani Ram, Dharam Pal, Mahendra and Vijendra, came out of that "kotha". Dhani Ram and Dharam Pal carried pistols, Vijendra was armed with a ballam and Mahendra carried a lathi. On seeing them, they took to their heels. After they reached the place, they found Badan Pal lying dead with bleeding wounds. The aforesaid witnesses identified the accused persons in the light of the electric bulb fixed on the roof of the tube-well as well as in the torch light. A report ofthe occurrence was prepared by Devendra Singh with the assistance of Charan Singh, PW- I, and was filed at Police Station Kharkhauda. After the criminal Jaw was set in motion, the investigation was conducted by S.l. Raj veer Singh, PW-8, who after recording the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC between 6 a.m. to 8 a'.m. on the next day, prepared the panchanama and the sketch map of the spot and collected blood stained and unstained eaith as well as two cmtridges. These were sealed on the spot and the dead body was sent for postmortem. On 29.03.1979, the investigation was transferred to S.I. V.P. Saxena and he came to learn on 1 (04.1979 that all the accused persons .. except Dhani Ram had surrendered before the Court and had been sent to custody. Dhani Ram was arrested by S.I. VP. Saxena at Meerut on 19.04.1979. Eventually after concluding the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused persons before the concerned Magistrate. 3. After the matter was committed to the Court of Session, charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused persons on 10.01.1980. The accused persons abjured their guilt and intended to face trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined 11 witnesses and marked certain documents as exhibits. Defence chose not to adduce any evidence. 4. The trial court evaluating the ocular and the documentary evidence brought on record found the accused person guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 5. The conviction and sentence was challenged before the High Court by all the four accused persons. One of the accused, namely, Dhani Ram expired during the pendency of the appeal before the High 115 A B c D E F G H 116 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R. Court and the appeal qua Dhani Ram stood abated. As far as the other three accused persons, namely, Dharam Pal, Mahendra and Vijendra, were concerned, the High Court concurred with the view expressed by the trial court and resultantly dismissed their appeal. Be it stated here that Dharam Pal has also expired, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. Be that as it may, there ·lif no appeal at his instance. The present two appeals have been preferred by the two appellants who are aggrieved by the affirmation of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the High Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Dash, learned senior counsel for the State of U.P. 7. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, there is no circumstance to infer common intention and as there has been no meeting of minds, the conviction cannot be supported in aid of Section 34 !PC. It is further submitted by him that the conviction is based on the testimonies of PWs-1to3, though Charan Singh,. the author of the l'IR, who is not an eye witness; that apart, the.evidence of PW-2, Gajpal, does not inspire confidence being replete with major contradictions, improvements and embellishments. It is urged that PW-3, Tedda, is a chance witness inasmuch as PW-I has himself accepted in his testimony that Tedda's going to the tube-well was notregular. According to Mr. Giri, the testimony of all the principal prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs-1 to 3 are not worthy of credence and they do not inspire confidence and hence, the conviction cannot be founded on their depositions which are definitely not beyond reproach. In this regard he would further urge that they are all related to each other and, therefore, their testimony has to be scrutinized with immense circumspection and when such a scrutiny is made, they do not reach the pedestal of unimpeachability and hence, on that score alone, their testimonies have to be discarded. Learned counsel would contend that Nepal Singh, who is stated to have accompanied PW-2 and PW-3 has not been examined and Ram Lal and Kasa who have been stated to have arrived at the tube-well, as per the testimo1iy of PW-2, have also not been examined and they are independent witnesses and their nonexamination creates an incurable dent in the version of the prosecution. As per the medical evidence there is only one gunshot injury attributed to pistol supposedly in the hands of Dhani Ram and Dharam Pal (both VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH fDIPAK MISRA, J.] since dead) and none of the iJ1juries on the person of the deceased could be attributed to lathi and ballam which were carried by the present appellants and, therefore, they cannot be m11de liable for the offence. Reforring to the testimony of PW-6, Dr. M.C. Varshney, it is put forth that the said witness has stated that there was no blackening and scorching at the gunshot wound and that belies the prosecution version that the deceased died of gunshot injury. Lastly, it is canvassed that Vijendra Singh was a juvenile on the date of incident and he has remained in custody more than the period that is required of a juvenile to remain at juvenile home. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn inspiration from Pra/(lp Sin1:h v. St(l/e of Jlwrkliand & Ors.', H(lri R(lm v. S/(l/e of R{lj(ls/lum {I/Id Anr. ', Sureslt Saklwram Na111:are v. State of Maharashtra', Jai Blwgw(ln and Ors. v. State of Haryana" and Bijendra BIWK(I/ v. St(l/e of Uttarak(lftand'. 8. Supporting the judgment of conviction of the trial court that has received the stamp ofapproval by the High Court, Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel submitted that the accused Mahendra Singh has rightly been convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 34 IPC and in that regard he has placed reliance upon Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab' and Harslwdsingh Palie/vansinglt Tlwkore v. State of Gujarat'. Mr. Dash further submitted that non-examination of certain witnesses in the backdrop of the present case does not affect the prosecution version inasmuch as the witnesses cited by the prosecution clearly established the charge against the accused persons. As regards the appeal preferred by appellant, Vijendra is concerned, learned senior counsel fairly conceded to the claim ofjuvenility and submitted that this Court may levy fine upon the appellant to be paid as compensation to the family-of the deceased in terms of law laid down in Jitemlra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 8 9. ·At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the principal witnesses are PW-I to PW-3 and the trial court as well as the appellate 1 Criminal Appeal No. 210 of2005 decided on 2.2.2005 ' (2009J 13 sec 211 3 (2012)9SCC249 ' ( 1999) 3 sec 102 '(2015)13SCC99 "AIR 1963SC 174 ' (1976)4 SCC640 ' (2013) 11sec193 117 A B c D E F G H 118 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. court has given credence to their evidence. PW- I, Charan Singh, the author of the FlR, has testified that he got the FIR of the incident prepared on the spot itself and then lodged it at Police Station Kharkhauda in the same night by handing over it to the Head Constable Devi Ram, PW-4, who thereafter made entry in the general diary. He has deposed that the accused Dharam Pal, Mahendra and Vijendra arc real brothers and they belonged to his own village; that about nine years ago prior to the date of occurrence, Gaje Singh, real brother of the accused, Dharam Pal, was n1urdered for which he and Hukam Singh, real brother of the deceased Badan Pal, and others were put on trial and eventually they were acquitted. He has stated in his evidence that since then the accused persons brewed enmity against them. It has also come out in his evidence that the deceased was a student of High School and used to stay in the kotha where the tube-well situate for availing the facility of electric light for his studies. · PW-2, Gajpal, cousin of the deceased Badan Pal, has clearly stated that he along with his cousin Nepal Singh left the village at about 7 p.m. carrying the meals for Badan Pal, who was staying inside the kotha of the aforesaid tube-we I I. He has further deposed that Ted ha, PW-3, accompanied them and after they reached the place, they heard a sound of gun firing from inside the kotha of the tube-well. He has deposed that he has seen all the four accused persons coming out of the northern side of the said kotha of the tube-well and he had also seen the accused Dhani Ram and Dharam Pal were armed with pistols and the accused Mahendra and Vijendra carried lathi and ballam respectively. He had identified the accused perscns because of the electric bulb burning in the kotha and further he had a torch light with him. Though there has been roving cross-examination .with regard to him seeing the accused persons coming out of the kotha, nothing has been really elicited to make his testimony impeachable. PW-3, Tedha, has also identified the accused person and supported the testimony of PW-2. That apart, the said witness has lent support to the case of the prosecution and corroborated in each necessary particulars that has been stated by the PW-2. It was contended before the learned trial judge that PW~2 and PW-3 are extremely interested witnesses and further PW-3 was a chance witness. The learned trial judge did not find any substance in the said contention inasmuch as there had been identification of the accused persons, vivid description of the weapons they carried and the recovery. Be it noted that though the pistol was not recovered, two cartridges were recovered from the spot of the occurrence. The learned trial judge arrived at the opinion thatthe VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DIPAK MISRA, J.] prosecution had been able to prove the presence of the witnesses PWs 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence and their version with regard to the accused persons committing the murder of the deceased. In appeal it was urged before the High Court that there was no motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased; that the trial court has not been circumspect in the scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who were highly interesteci\vitnesses; that there was no justification on the part of PW-2 to carry a torch with him and, in any case, their testimony that they had seen the accused persons was absolutely unacceptable; that the deceased had received only one fire arm injury and the appellants were armed with lathi and ballam and had not assaulted the deceased and, therefore, decision by the learned trial judge to convict them in aid of Section 34 IPC was totally sustainable. I 0. On a keen scruti1iy of the decision of the High Court, it is evident that it repelled the submissions of the appellants on the ground that lack of motive was too feebie a plea in the circumstance of the case to throw the prosecution case overboard; that it has come in evidence that the accused persons had harboured vengeance against them after their acquittal in the case where they were tried for the offence under Section 302 !PC; that there was no reason why the witnesses who were close relations of the deceased would falsely embroil the accused persons leaving the real culprits; that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 singularly on the ground that they are related witnesses. for they have stood embedded in their version and there is no inconsistency to discredit them; that there is nothing unusual on the part of PW-2 to carry a torch with him; that the identification of the accused persons by PWs 2 and 3 with the help of electric light and torch has been appositely appreciated by the learned trial judge and there was no reason to dislodge the said finding; that the plea that PW-3 was a chance witness and his presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful did not really commend acceptation, for his testimony was worthy of credence; that nothing tangible could be elicited from the evidence of the witnesses in crossexamination by which the version could be doubted and hence, there is no infirmity or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court; and that the trial court has not erred in convicting the accused persons in aid of Section 34 !PC. In this regard, the High Court further held that the said provision is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. It further opined that the evidence of ocular witnesses had been found to be satisfactory, reliable, consistent and credible by the 119 A B c D E F G H 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A trial court and nothing tangible could be elicited from their evidence in the cross-examination to create any speck ofdoubt in their version or to treat their testimony as infirm or perverse. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the authority in Suresh Sakharam Nangare (supra) would submit that the High Court B · has admitted in the impugnedjudgmentthat the direct proofof common intenti.on is seldom available and in the present case there is. no circumsfance that such intention can be inferred without there being evidence of preconcert. Learned counsel for the appellants further criticized the judgment of the High Court submitting that as per deposition c D E F G H of Dr. Varshney, PW-6, who conducted post mortem of the deceased body, there was no blackening, no scorching present at the gunshot wound, the genesis of the entire prosecution case that the murder took place in kotha of tube-well i.e the gun was shot from close range deserves.to be discarded. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the conviction of the appellant Mahendra is not sustainable since none of the injuries on the person of the deceased is attributable to lathi which was supposedly in the hand of Mahendra. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the authority in Bijentfra Bhagat (supra) wherein this Court acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt stating· that none of the injuries on the person of the deceased could be attributed to lathi which was supposedly in the hands of the appellant. 13. As is evincible. the accused-appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 !PC. It has come in evidence of PW-2 that the accused Mahendra was armed with lathi and accused Vijendra Singh was armed with a ballam and they were in the company of other accused. When the evidence in its entirety is studiedly scrutinized, it clearly shows that the accused persons were present in the shed, they were seen going away and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. The witnesses specifically stated about the weapons being carried by the accused persons. The submission is that the prosecution story rests on the gun shot injury but there is no evidence with regard to injury caused by the lathi or ballam. It is relevant to state here that cartridges from the spot have been recovered and PW-6 Doctor who conducted the post mortem had found gunshot wound of entry eight in number in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm on the right side of neck just above the clavicle and lower part of · neck. The dimensions of the wound ranged from I cm x 0.15 cm to VIJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 121 fDIPAK MISRA, J .l 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep. There was no blackening or scorching A around the wound. True it is that the doctor has stated that there is no blackening or scorching around the wound, but that will not belie that the injury was not inflicted by the firing from the gun. He has opined that the death of the deceased was caused by gunshot injury. 14. The heart of the matter is whether Section 34 !PC would be B attracted to such a case or not. In this regard, we may refer to certain authorities as to how this Court has viewed the concept of "common intention" and thereafter reflect upon how it is applicable to the case at hand. 15. Mr.Giri has drawn our attention to paragraph I 0 of the authority c in Jui Bltagwan (supra). It reads as follows:- "! O. To apply ·section 34 IPC apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be .established: (i) common intention and (ii) -participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. If a common intention is proved but no o overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vkarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and a common intention is absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked. In every case, it is not possible to have direct evidence of a common intention. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case." E 16. He has also relied on the decision in Sureslt Saklwrum Nangare (supra). In the said case, the Court after referring to Section 34 !PC opined that a reading. of the above provision makes it clear that to apply Section 34, apart from the factthatthere should be two or more accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention, and (ii) F participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. It further makes clear that if common intention.is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is ab.sent, Section 34 cannot .be invoked. G 17. In the said case, die Court after analyzing the evidence opined that there is no material from the side of the prosecution to show that the appellant therein had any common intention to eliminate the deceased because the only thing against the appellant therein was that he used to associate himself with the accused for smoking ganja. On this factual ~ H 122 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. score, the Cami came to hold that the appellant could not be convicted in aid of Section 34 !PC. 18. In this regard, we may usefully refer to a passage from the authority in Pandurang and Ors. v. Stale of Hyderaba