GADADHAR CHANDRA vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2009 GADADHAR CHANDRA             ..…  APPELLANT  v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL         …..  RESPONDENT J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. The Sessions Court has convicted the appellant­accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).  The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.  The appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Sessions Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment rd of the Calcutta High Court dated 23  December 2008.

2 nd The   incident   is   of   2   August   1976.   PW1   Shri   Khiroda 2. Mohan Paul, Head Master of a High School, and the deceased Purna Chandra Ghosh, assistant teacher in the said school, were returning home from the school at about 5.30 pm.  Though the deceased was having a bicycle, both were proceeding to their village on foot.   When they came near the railway gate, they noticed that the accused (the appellant and Arjun Mondal, a juvenile)   were   sitting   along   with   Susanta   Kr.   Chandra   and Rabu.   The appellant and the said Arjun came running from behind   and   caught   hold   of   the   bicycle   of   deceased   Purna Chandra Ghosh. The appellant questioned the deceased as to why he had assaulted his elder brother.  Words were exchanged between the appellant, Arjun and PW1 as well as the deceased. The appellant and Arjun took out knives.   When PW1 tried to prevent   the   assault,   the   appellant   brandished   his   knife   and threatened to assault PW1 in case he obstructs.   There was a scuffle between Arjun and the deceased.  The deceased tried to defend himself by using his bicycle and umbrella.  In the scuffle, Arjun stabbed the deceased with his knife.  Thereafter, both the appellant and Arjun left the place. 3 On the earlier date, this Court directed the learned counsel 3. appearing   for   the   respondent­State   of   West   Bengal   to   take instructions on the progress of the trial against Arjun before the Juvenile   Justice   Board.     The   learned   counsel   appearing   for respondent stated that the record of the Juvenile Justice Board has been destroyed  in the  floods  of 2000.   Hence, the  case against Arjun has not progressed.   SUBMISSIONS   OF   THE   LEARNED   COUNSEL   FOR   THE APPELLANTS   4. Shri   Siddhartha   Dave,   the   learned   senior   counsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that Section 34 of IPC was not attracted in the present case.  He urged that prior concert and pre­arranged plan to kill the deceased has not been established.     He   submitted   that   the   only   overt   act   alleged against the appellant is of brandishing a knife and threatening to assault PW1.   There was a scuffle between Arjun and the deceased. It was Arjun who stabbed the deceased which led to his death.  He submitted that though the knife allegedly used by Arjun was recovered, the knife allegedly used by the appellant was admittedly not recovered.  He urged that as Section 34 of IPC will not apply to this case, the conviction of the appellant 4 will   have   to   be   set   aside.   He   stated   that   the   appellant   has undergone incarceration for approximately seven years and six months.   SUBMISSIONS   OF   THE   LEARNED   COUNSEL   FOR   THE RESPONDENT  5. Shri Nikhil Parikshith,   the learned counsel appearing for the   respondent­State,   submitted   that   the   testimony   of   PW1, PW6, PW11 and PW13 shows that there was prior a enmity between the appellant and the deceased, which establishes the motive.    He  submitted  that  the  statement of  Arjun recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) corroborates the role played by the appellant of brandishing his knife.   He urged that the non­recovery of the knife used by the appellant is of no consequence as there is a cogent evidence against the appellant.  He submitted that there was a meeting of minds and prior concert on the part of the appellant and Arjun.   He submitted that the statements made by   PW1   in   his   cross­examination   show   that   blows   were exchanged   between   the   appellant   and   the   deceased.     He submitted that the appellant actively assisted Arjun by holding the   shirt’s   collar   of   the   deceased.   He   pointed   out   that   the 5 appellant made no effort to prevent Arjun from committing the crime.   He   urged   that   now   the   appellant   cannot   raise   a contention regarding the absence of common intention as the said contention was never raised before the Trial Court or the High Court. 6. He relied upon various decisions of this Court on Section 34 of IPC.  The said decisions are  v Rajkishore Purohit  . State 1 of Madhya Pradesh and others ,   Dhanpal   v . State (NCT of 2 Delhi)   and   Pandurang,   Tukia   and   Bhillia   v .   State   of 3 Hyderabad .   He submitted that no interference is called for with the judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS The prosecution’s case is that PW1 and the deceased were 7. nd proceeding to their village at about 5.30 in the evening on 2 August 1976. When they reached the railway gate, they saw that the appellant, Arjun, Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu were sitting   together.     Only   the   appellant   and   Arjun   got   up   and started   running   after   PW1   and   the   deceased.     Appellant 1 (2017) 9 SCC 483 2 (2020) 5 SCC 705 3 AIR 1955 SC 216 6 questioned   the   deceased   why   he   had   assaulted   one   Dam (Subhas Chandra), the appellant’s elder brother. The overt act alleged  against  PW1  is  that after  words  were  exchanged,   he brandished a knife and threatened PW1 to assault.  After PW1 retreated steps, Arjun tried to assault the deceased.  By using his bicycle, the deceased tried to defend himself. There was a scuffle  between   the   deceased   and   Arjun,   and   in   the   scuffle, Arjun   stabbed   the   deceased.     Arjun   fled   to   jungle,   and   the appellant also left the place.    8. A question was asked to PW1 in the cross­examination that how many blows were exchanged between Gangadhar and the deceased.  In response, PW1 stated that Arjun administered blows to the deceased, and at that time, Gangadhar was holding the shirt collar of the deceased.  PW1 pleaded ignorance when a suggestion   was   given   to   him   in   the   cross­examination   that Arjun and the appellant also suffered injuries. 9. Apart from PW1, there is no other material witness.  The prosecution relied upon the statement of Arjun recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Even assuming that it is a confessional statement, in view of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 7 1872, the same cannot be used against the appellant as Arjun is being separately tried before the Juvenile Justice Board.  It is not the  prosecution  case  that the  appellant  and   Arjun were waiting for the deceased near the road by which the deceased used to go back to his village after attending the school.  PW1 had stated that along with Arjun and the appellant, Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu were also sitting.  When the deceased and PW1 came there, the appellant and Arjun ran after them. The relationship between the appellant and Arjun is not brought on record.     If,   according   to   the   prosecution   case,   there   was   a meeting of minds and prior concert between the appellant and Arjun when they were sitting with Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu, the prosecution ought to have examined both Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu.  In fact, they appear to be eye witnesses to the incident.   They were privy to the conversation between the appellant and Arjun.   The prosecution has not explained its failure to examine these two crucial witnesses, who apart from being eye witnesses, were sitting along with the appellant and Arjun just before the incident near the place of incident. The prosecution has withheld the evidence of two material witnesses who could have thrown light on the incident. Hence, this is a 8 case for drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. Moreover, the knife allegedly used by the appellant has not been recovered.     According   to   the   prosecution,   the   appellant questioned the deceased why he had beaten Subhas Chandra, the appellant’s elder brother. After that, there was an exchange of words.  The exchange of blows was between the deceased and Arjun.     The   scuffle   was   between   the   deceased   and   Arjun. Ultimately,   it   was   Arjun   who   stabbed   the   deceased.     As consistently held by this Court, common intention contemplated by Section 34 of IPC pre­supposes prior concert.   It requires meeting of minds.  It requires a pre­arranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another.  The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.  In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly.  In the present case, the non­examination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and pre­arranged plan extremely doubtful.  10. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section   34   of   IPC   in   this   case.   The   appellant   has   been 9 implicated only with the aid of section 34. Therefore, the appeal must succeed.   Accordingly,   the   impugned   judgments   and   orders   dated 11. rd th 23  December 2008 and 5  June 1990 of the High Court and Sessions Court are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. 12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.  All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.  …………..…………………J (AJAY RASTOGI) …………..…………………J (ABHAY S. OKA) New Delhi; March 15, 2022.