minal Appeals Nos
91 to 93 of 1954
Appeals by Special Leave granted by Supreme Court on the 18th January 1954 from the Judgment and Order dated the 18th June 1953 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Confirmation Case No 3766 of 1952 53 and Criminal Appeals Nos3946 3956 and 3926 of 1952 53 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd June 1952 of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bidar in Sessions Case No 98 of 1951 52
J B Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the appellant
In Criminal Appeal No 91 of 1954
N C Chakravarty for the appellants
In Criminal Appeals Nos 92 and 93 of 1954
P A Mehta and P G Gokhale for the respondent
December 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J
Five persons including the three appellants were prosecuted for the murder of one Ram chander Shelke
Each was convicted and each was 1085 sentenced to death under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The appeals and the confirmation proceedings in the High Court were heard by M section Ali Khan and V R Deshpande JJ
They differed
The former considered that the convictions should be maintained but was of opinion that the sentence in each case should be commuted to imprisonment for life
The latter favoured an acquittal in all five cases
The matter was accordingly referred to a third Judge P J Reddy J He agreed with the first about the convictions and adjudged all five to be guilty under section 302
On the question of sentence he considered that the death sentences on the three appellants Pandurang Tukia and Bhilia should be maintained and that those of the other two should be commuted to transportation for life
It seems that the opinion of the third Judge was accepted as the decision of the Court and so the sentences suggested by him were maintained as well as the convictions
All five convicts then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal
The petition was heard by Ali Khan and Reddy JJ
and they made the following order The circumstances of the crime in this case were such that a brutal murder had been committed and sentence of death was the only one legally possible for the Sessions Judge to have passed and it was confirmed by the High Court
Leave to appeal was refused
Pandurang Tukia and Bhilia who were sentenced to death applied here for special leave to appeal
Their petition was granted
The other two have not appealed
The prosecution case is this
On 7 12 1950 about 3 o clock in the afternoon Ramchander Shelke the deceased went to his field known as Bhavara with his wife s sister Rasika Bai PW1 and his servant Subhana Rao PW7
Rasika Bai started to pick chillies in the field while Ramehander went to another field Vaniya che seth which is about a furlong away
We gather that this field is near a river called 1086 Papana
Anyway Rasika Bai heard shouts from that direction so she ran to the river bank with Subhana and they both say that they saw all five accused attacking Ramchander with axes and sticks
Two other persons Laxman PW6 and Elba PW5 who were in the neighbourhood also heard the cries and ran to the spot
They also say they witnessed the assault and name all five accused
The former has a field near by and was working in it the latter was a passer by
Rasika Bai shouted out to the assailants not to beat Ramchander but they threatened her and then ran away
Ramehander died on the spot almost immediately
There are four eye witnesses and the main question we have to consider is whether they can be believed
Ordinarily we would not have enquired into questions of fact but as three persons have been sentenced to death on the opinion of the third Judge despite the opinion of one that the death sentence should not be imposed and of the other that the appellants are not guilty and so should be acquitted we have deemed it advisable to examine the evidence
Two of the eye witnesses were considered unreliable by Reddy J in the High Court so we will omit them from consideration and concentrate on the other two Rasika Bai PW1 and Subhana PW7
Both give substantially the same version of what they saw of the assault
They heard Ramehander s cries from the direction of the river bank and rushed there
They say they saw all five accused striking him the three appellants Pandurang Tukia and Bhilia with axes the other two who have not appealed with sticks
It is said that there is some discrepancy between Rasika Bai s statement in the Sessions Court and in the Committal Court about the order in which the blows were given and their number
Ali Khan J and Reddy J considered this unimportant and so do we
The important thing is that both witnesses are agreed on the following points 1 that Tukia struck Ramchander on his cheek 1087 Rasika Bai adds that he also struck him on the head 2 that Pandurang hit him on the head 3 that after these blows Ramchander fell down and then Bhilia hit him on the neck
Subhana does not say that the other two struck any particular blow
Rasika says that one of them Nilia hit Ramchander on the thigh with his stick and assigns no particular blow to the other
Rasika Bai s version is that on seeing the assault she called out to the accused not to hit but they  raised their axes and sticks and threatened her and then ran away
Subbana merely says that they ran away
After this all the accused absconded
They were arrested on different dates and were committed to trial separately
The dates of arrest and committal respectively in the case of each are as follows Bhilia 9 1 1951 and 14 6 1951 Tukia 13 10 1951 and 10 1 1952 Pandurang 31 8 1951 and 10 1 1952 Tukaram 13 4 1951 and 29 9 1951 Nilia 13 10 1951 and 10 1 1952 The main attack on this evidence was directed to the fact that neither the accused nor the eye witnesses are named in the First Information Report
According to the prosecution the report was made in the following circumstances
Rasika and Subbana say that after the assault they went back to the village and told Rasika s sister Narsabai PW 2 the deceased s widow what they had seen
Narsabai says that they disclosed the names of the assailants at that time
From here we go to the Police Patel who lives in a neighbouring village one mile away
He is Mahadappa PW 9
He says that he was standing outside his house in his own village when the sun was setting and saw Krishnabai the mother in law of the deceased crying as she passed by outside his house
He asked her what was wrong and she told him that her sonin law had been killed
On hearing this he wrote out 1088 a report exhibit No 4 and sent it to the Police Station at Udgir which is about six miles from the scene of the murder
The First Information Report was recorded on the basis of this report at 10 o clock the next morning
Now nobody tells us who carried the report to the Police Station
It is written on a printed form and is signed by the Police Patel
Opposite the column headed Name and address of the complainant or informant is entered Tukaram so Panda Sheolka
The Sub Inspector who wrote out the first information report on the basis of this report entered the following in it I am to submit that today a report dated 7 12 1950 from the Police Patel Neemgaon village has been received stating that 1 Tukaram so Panda Sheolka ro Neemgaon village came and stated that on 7 12 1950 Ramchander so Govind Reddy was murdered etc
The Police Patel tells us that this Tukaram is a cousin of the deceased
He also says that Tukaram whose name is entered in column No 2 is not the informant but is the complainant in this case
Tukaram had not given any written complaint to me
He had not given oral information to me
When I saw Krishnabai weeping and going I did not know where Tukaram was
I do not know whether Tukaram was present in the village on that day or not
This does shroud the matter in mystery but the fact that the report was made is we think beyond dispute also that it was made about 10 o clock the following morning
It is to be noted that the SubInspector does not say that Tukaram brought the report to him but that exhibit 4 the report received from the Police Patel states that Tukaram gave the Police Patel the information
In that he is not right though the mistake is natural enough because exhibit 4 merely places Tukaram s name opposite the printed column headed complainant or informant
That leaves the matter equivocal but in view of what the Police Patel tells us we think that he did mean to convey that 1089 Tukaram was the complainant probably because he did not want to enter a woman s name and so picked on the nearest male relative
We see no reason to doubt his statement
He says he did not know any names at that time and that is evident from the report
But what the learned counsel for the appellants says is that he saw Narsabai on the evening of the murder and as she did not give him any names it is evident that no one knew who the assailants were and that therefore the accusation made against the accused was a subsequent concoction and that it was for that reason that they waited till the next morning before reporting the matter to the police
The Police Patel Mahadappa admits that he went to the scene of the occurrence the same night and that he stayed there the whole night
He also admits that he saw Narsabai there but says he did not speak to her
We have no doubt that he learned the names of the assailants when he went there but this was after he had sent his report
There is some mystery about the report
It did not reach the Police Station till 10 AM the next day though it was written about sunset the evening before but as we do not know who took it and why he delayed it is idle to speculate
What is certain is that there was no point in sending off a report without names the next morning if the idea of delay was to concoct a story and implicate innocent persons
They would either have hit on the names by then or would have waited a little longer until they made up their minds about the story they intended to tell
The haphazard way in which the report was written and dispatched indicates rustic simplicity rather than clever and well planned deceit
It has to be remembered that the deceased left no male relatives except this cousin Tukaram about whom the Police Patel speaks and his father Pandu and though cause for enmity between Ramchander and three of the appellants is disclosed there is nothing to connect this Tukaram or his father Pandu with the quarrel and no one suggests that anybody else bore them a grudge
We think it unlikely that these three women Rasikabai Narsa 1090 bai and Krishnabai would have been capable of concocting this elaborate story and of influencing the Police Patel to stay his hand till they bad thought of a suitable tale and found likely victims for their plot
Moreover the whole village probably turned out as soon as the news spread in any case the witnesses are agreed that there was a large crowd there
We think it would have been easy to find many persons to say that though they asked Rasikabai and Subhana and Narsabai and others present to tell them what had happened nobody could because no one knew
It would be ridiculous to suppose that the whole village bore the accused a grudge and joined in an elaborate conspiracy against them
In the circumstances we think Mahadappa told the truth
The absence of the names in the report is therefore not of much consequence in this case especially as the names were disclosed in full at the time of the inquest
All the witnesses who speak about this are agreed on that point
Once that hurdle is surmounted there is very little else to criticise in the evidence of Rasikabai and Subhana bar unimportant discrepancies and the fact that they have made a few small and unimportant contradictions between their testimony in court and some of their numerous earlier statements
There were three sets of committal proceedings and of course the usual questioning by the police and then the proceedings in the Sessions Court so it is not surpris ing that these simple rustics should get confused and not remember in minute detail exactly what they had said from stage to stage
But the major part of their story hangs together remarkably well despite the many attempts to trip them in cross examination in the various courts
As Reddy J has dealt with these discrepancies in detail we need not go over it all again
The injuries shown in the Inquest Report and the postmortem report do not tally
It is questionable how far an inquest report is admissible except under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act but we do not regard the difference as of value so far as the appel 1091 lants are concerned at best it could only have helped Tukaram and Nilia who have not appealed
The Inquest Report shows eight injuries
The first four are incised wounds and tally with the evidence given by the witnesses
The remaiding four are described as blue and black marks
The postmortem mentions the first four but not the others
The doctor was recalled by the High Court and be gives some sort of explanation about postmortem stains on the body which we do not think is satisfactory but the utmost this shows is that no stick blows were found on the body and that we are prepared to accept
On a careful consideration of the evidence we think Rasika and Subhana are telling the truth and that they can be relied on
We will not rely on the other two witnesses
We are prepared to disregard the evidence of Rasika and Subhana in so far as they say that Tukaram and Nilia also beat Ramchander because the medical evidence does not disclose any injuries which could have been caused by a stick or sticks
As a matter of fact Subhana does not ascribe any particular blow either to Tukaram or to Nilia though he does describe in detail what the other three did
All be says about Tukaram and Nilia is thatThe accused present were striking Ramchander Pandurang Bhilia and Tukia were holding axes
Tukaram and Nilia had sticks in their bands
This sort of omnibus accusation is not of much value and Rasikabai is not much better though she does say that Nilia bit Ramchander on the thigh
Except for this all she says is that We saw the accused present striking Ramchander Shelke
We think Rasika and Subhana are telling the truth when they say that these two accused were also there but we think that because of that they think they must have joined in the attack and so have added that detail to their story
It is also possible that Nilia did hit out at Ramchander but that the blow did not land on his body
In any case they only 140 1092 had sticks in their hands which have not even been conceded the dignity of lathis
So the part they played was negligible
We have looked into their cases to this extent so that we can set them on one side in determining who was responsible for the remaining injuries and also because the part they played will be necessary in determining the extent of the common object or intention if any
The medical evidence shows that the injury that caused death was the one on the neck
All the eyewitnesses are agreed that Bhilia was responsible for that
We refer to the other eye witnesses here to show that there is no discrepancy on this point but we only rely on Rasikabai and Subhana for determining the fact Bhilia was directly charged with the murder and the injury on the throat is ascribed to him in the charge
His conviction cannot therefore be assailed on any of the technical points which arise in the case of the other two
We uphold his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The injury on the throat having been accounted for we are left with three
They are 1 an incised wound on the scalp above the left ear 2an incised wound on the scalp central partand 3a lacerated wound on the left side of the face which crushed the upper and lower jaws including the lips and teeth
The doctor says that 1 and 2 could not have caused death but that the third could
Rasikabai and Subhana are agreed that the only person who struck on the cheek is Tukia
Rasikabai adds that he also hit Ramchander on the bead
That means that Tukia and Pandurang caused the two non fatal injuries on the head one each and that Tukia alone caused the fatal one on the cheek
Tukia s conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was therefore jusified
In Pandurang s case we are left with the difficult question about section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
1093 But before we deal with that we will set section 149 of the Indian Penal Code aside
There is no charge under section 149 and as Lord Sumner points out in Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs King Emperor1 section 149 unlike section 34 creates a specific offence and deals with the punishment of that offence alone
We would accordingly require strong reasons for using section 149 when it is not charged even if it be possible to convict under that section in the absence of a specific charge a point we do not decide here
But that apart there is in our opinion no evidence here which would justify the conclusion of a common object even if one had been charged
There is some vague evidence to the effect that there had once been a dacoity at Ramchander s house and that he suspected the accused and reported them to the police who arrested them but nothing came of it and they were later released
This is put forward as one of the grounds of enmity and to show why all five joined in the attack
But in the absence of anything specific we are not prepared to act on such a vague allegation especially about the persons who are said to have been wrongfully blamed
What however is more specific is this Ramchander bought a field called Hatkerni at Neemgaon from one Shivamma Patelni about a year before the murder
Narsabai tells us that the three accused Nilia Bhilia and Tukia all of whom are Lambadas used to live in that field
When Ramchander bought it he turned them out and she says that gave them cause for enmity against him
Now even if it be accepted that this evidence is indicative of prior concert it only embraces the three Lambadas Nilia Bhilia and Tukia
Pandurang who is a Hatkar is not included
As this is the only evidence indicating a common purpose and as we know nothing about what preceded the assault for the witnesses arrived after it bad started we cannot gatber any common object from the fact that Pandu rang though armed with an axe only inflicted a light blow on the scalp which did not break any of the 1 1924 LR 52 IA 40 52 1094 fragile bones in that region and from the fact that two others who were lightly armed with what have been called sticks inflicted no injuries at all
Section 149 is therefore out of the question
Turning now to section 34 that was not charged in Pandurang s case but we need not consider whether such an omission is fatal because even if it had been charged there is no evidence from which a common intention embracing him can legitimately be deduced
As we have just said the witnesses arrived at a time when the beating was already in progress
They knew nothing about what went before
We are not satisfied that Tukaram is proved to have done anything except be present and even if it be accepted that Nilia aimed a blow at Ramchander s thigh be was so half hearted about it that it did not even hit him and in Pandurang s case though armed with a lethal weapon he did no more than inflict a comparatively light head injury
It is true they all ran away when the eye witnesses arrived and later absconded but there is nothing to indicate that they ran away together as a body or that they met afterwards
Rasikabai says that the accused raised their axes and sticks and threatened her when she called out to them but that again is an all embracing statement which we are not prepared to take literally in the absence of further particulars
People do not ordinarily act in unison like a Greek chorus and quite apart from dishonesty this is a favourite device with witnesses who are either not mentally alert or are mentally lazy and are given to loose thinking
They are often apt to say all even when they only saw some because they are too lazy mentally to differentiate
Unless therefore a witness particularises when there are a number of accused it is ordinarily unsafe to accept omnibus inclusions like this at their face value
We are unable to deduce any prior arrangement to murder from these facts
Now in the case of section 34 we think it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior concert
It requires a pre arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the 1095 criminal act of another the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all Mahbub Shah vs King Emperor1
Accordingly there must have been a prior meeting of minds
Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention namely the intention to kill and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre arranged plan
In a case like that each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs King Emperor2 and Mahbub Shah vs King Emperor1
As their Lordships say in the latter case the partition which divides their bounds is often very thin nevertheless the distinction is real and substantial and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice
The plan need not be elaborate nor is a long interval of time required
It could arise and be formed suddenly as for example when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they either by their words or their acts indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault
There is then the necessary meeting of the minds
There is a pre arranged plan however hastily formed and rudely conceived
But pre arrangement there must be and premeditated concert
It is not enough as in the latter Privy Council case to have the same intention independently of each other eg the intention to rescue another and if necessary to kill those who oppose
In the present case there is no evidence of any prior meeting
We know nothing of what they said or did before the attack not even immediately before
Pandurang is not even of the same caste as the others 1 1945 LR 72 IA 148 153 154
2 19241 LR 52 IA 40 49
1096 Bhilia Tukia and Nilia are Lambadas Pandurang is a Hatkar and Tukaram a Maratha
It is true prior concert and arrangement can and indeed often must be determined from subsequent conduct as for example by a systematic plan of campaign unfolding itself during the course of the action Which could only be referable to prior concert and pre arrangement or a running away together in a body or a meeting together subsequently
But to quote the Privy Council again the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case
But to say this is no more than to reproduce the ordinary rule about circumstantial evidence for there is no special rule of evidence for this class of case
At bottom it is a question of fact in every case and however similar the circumstances facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another
All that is necessary is either to have direct proof of prior concert or proof of circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference or as we prefer to put it in the time honoured way the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis
Sarkar s Evidence 8th edition page 30
The learned counsel for the State relied on Mamand vs Emperor1 because in that case the accused all ran away and their Lordships took that into consideration to establish a common intention
But there was much more than that
There was evidence of enmity on the part of the accused who only joined in the attack but had no hand in the killing and none on the part of the two who did the actual murder
There was evidence that all three lived together and that one was a younger brother and the other a tenant of the appellant in question
There was evidence that they all ran away together not simply that they ran away at the same moment of time when discovered but that they ran away together
As we have said each case must rest on its own facts and the mere 1 AIR 1946 P C 45
1097 similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine a conclusion of fact in another
In the present case we are of opinion that the facts disclosed do not warrant an inference of common intention in Pandurang s case
Therefore even if that had been charged no conviction could have followed on that basis
Pandurang is accordingly only liable for what he actually did
In our opinion his act falls under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code
A blow on the head with an axe which penetrates half an inch into the head is in our opinion likely to endanger life
We therefore set aside his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him instead under section 326
We are of opinion that in his case a sentence of imprisonment for a term of ten years will suffice
We accordingly set aside the sentence of death and alter it to one of ten years  rigorous imprisonment
That leaves the question of sentence in the case of Bhilia and Tukia
It was argued that no sentence of death can be passed unless two Judges concur because of section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was argued that section 378 of the Code does not abrogate or modify that provision
We do not intend to examine that here because we are of opinion that the sentence should be reduced to transportation in these two cases mainly because of the difference of opinion in the High Court not only on the question of guilt but also on that of sentence
In saying this we do not intend to fetter the discretion of Judges in this matter for a question of sentence is and must always remain a matter of discretion unless the law directs otherwise
But when appellate Judges who agree on the question of guilt differ on that of sentence it is usual not to impose the death penalty unless there are compelling reasons
We see no reason to depart from this practice in this case and so reduce the sentences of death in the case of Bhilia and Tukia to transportation for life because of the difference of opinion in the High Court


Summary:
It is well settled that common intention in section 34 of tile Indian Penal Code presupposes prior concert
It requires a prearranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another the act must have boon done in furtherance of the common intention of them all
Accordingly there must have been a prior meeting of minds
Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention namely the intention to kill and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre arranged plan
In a case like that each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case
Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention the partition which divides their bounds is often very thin nevertheless the distinction is real and substantial and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice
The plan need not be elaborate nor is a long interval of time required
It could arise and be formed suddenly But there must 139 1084 be pre arrangement and premeditated concert
It is not enough to have the same intention independently of each other
The inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case
It is a question of fact in every case and however similar the circumstances facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another
All that is necessary is either to have direct proof of prior concert or proof of circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference or in other words the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of ex planation on any other reasonable hypothesis
When appellate judges who agree on the question of guilt differ on that of sentence it is usual not to impose the death penalty unless there are compelling reasons
Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs King Emperor 1924 LR 52 IA 40 Mahbub Shalt vs King Emperor 1945 LP 72 IA 148 and Mamand vs Emperor AIR  referred to