JASDEEP SINGH @JASSU VS STATE OF PUNJAB, [JANUARY, 05, 2022]

INTRODUCTION 

The case of Jasdeep Singh @Jassu vs State of Punjab, involves the issue pertaining to interpretation of section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, 1860). Two criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants against their conviction under section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 while the third appeal has been filed defacto by the complainant who seeks in the prayer the modification of his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. All these three appeals have been heard jointly as it has been emerged from the common order of the Punjab and Haryana Court 2019 SCC Online. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Four accused persons has been charged under the section 302 and 34 of India Penal Code, 1860 and section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 for the alleged offence of murder of deceased on 21.04.2011 in Jalandhar. 
2. The incidence is witnessed by the father (PW6) of the deceased, while he was on his way to search for his son (deceased) and by incidental friend of deceased (PW 10). 
3. The trial court brought the matter under exception 4 to section 304 of IPC, 1860 holding that there was no premeditation and the occurrence took place in pursuance to a sudden fight. 
4. Appeal was filed by both the parties in the Punjab and Haryana court, wherein the court concurred with the view of the trial court and set aside the appeals accordingly. However, the scope of section 34 was also not dealt by the High Court as it agrees with the same decision to that of the trial court. 
5. Furthermore, Appelant 3 and Appelant 4 have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India to overturn the judgement of the High Court. 

ISSUE RAISED 

1. Whether section 34 of IPC, 1860 applies in the case of Accused 3 and Accused 4. 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

APPELANT 

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that the trial court has wrongfully convicted Accused 3 and Accused 4 under section 34 of IPC, 1860 on the fact that that the testimony delivered by PW6 is doubtful rendering the trial court error in applying in section 34. 

RESPONDENT 

The counsel on behalf of the respondents has submitted to upheld the decision of the High Court for that matter as argued by the counsel that cogent reasoning was given by the High Court while delivering this judgement on the basis of the entire material on record and the proved recoveries. And hence, under these circumstances no question of interference of the Supreme Court lies for the matter of sentence and conviction. 

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The court in its final decision allowed the appeal of Accused 3 and Accused 4 stating the reason that , as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt and the High Court has not even considered the import of section 34 on Accused 3 and Accused 4, the order of trial court stands sustained and hence the order of High Court confirming that of trial court is set aside. 

Further while giving an example of a team effort akin to a game of football involving several positions explains that same logic is the foundation of Section 34 IPC which creates shared liability on those who shared the common intention to commit the crime. The court has held that onus of proving of section 34 against any person lies on the prosecution which is needed to be proved by substantial, concrete, definite and clear evidences. Further it pointed out that the most important requirement to attract the case in this section is the presence of “common intention”. However a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, unless it is accompanied by some action in furtherance of that intention. 

Judgements referred:

The court referred to the excerpt of some of the following judgmenets including 

• Suresh v State of U.P, 
• Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar, 
• Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P, 
• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor,
•  Mehbub Shah v. Emperor,
•  Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar,
•  Krishnan & Another v. State of Kerala, 
• Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P.
•  Gopi Nath @ Jhallar v. State of U.P.,
•  Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P,
•  Nand Kishore V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
• Shyamal Ghosh V. State of West Bengal
•  Virendra Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 

ANALYSIS

The decision of the Trial Court held to be sustained as it was found that the evidence of PW6 was disbelieved by the trial court as well as High Courts as far as application of section 34 of IPC, 1860 is concerned. No evidence is found as to the fact that Accused 3 and Accused 4 were aware of the fact that Accused 1 has a gun with him. The evidence on record was not sufficient to form a case under section 34 as against A3 and A4.  

CONCLUSION 

This case gave a wider interpretation to section 34 of IPC, 1860. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the most important ingredient to attract this section is the presence of commom intention. However it is declared that mere presence of common intention will not attract the case unless it is accompanied by an act in furtherance of that common intention. It has beautifully explained the scope of section 34 through an illustration of a football match ground. With this judgement, the court has narrowed down the scope of application of section 34. 

REFERENCES

1. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/01/10/a-team-effort-akin-to-a-game-of-football-supreme-courts-interesting-analogy-explaining-section-34-of-ipc/
2. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jasdeep-singh-jassu-vs-state-of-punjab-2022-livelaw-sc-19-1-407176.pdf
3. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/JASDEEP%20SINGH%20%40JASSU%20VS%20STATE%20OF%20PUNJAB%202022
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49260341/#:~:text=It%20is%20not%20necessary%20that,filed%20by%20the%20Accused%2DAppellants.&text=18.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin