Shiv Prasad Chunilal Jain VS. The State Of Maharashtra

Reporting JudgeDayal

Linked as:

Summary

In a trial by jury the appellants were jointly charged along with -accused No. 1 with an offence punishable under ss. 471 and 467 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first charge was that in 921

furtherance of their common intention to cheat the railway administration, accused No. 1 had fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged railway receipt. The second charge was framed in the alternative. Firstly it charged all the accused under s. 467 read with s. 34 I.P.C. on account of accused No. 1 having forged the bill portion. In the alternative, accused No. 1 was charged under s. 467

I.P.C. and the appellants were charged under s. 467 read with s. 109 I.P.C. for having abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of that offence. Similarly charges Nos. 3 to 6 were framed in the alternative. The jury returned a unani- nious verdict of guilty against all the accused for the various offences read with s. 34 I.P.C. The verdict of the jury was not recorded with respect to the five alternative charges against accused No. 1 regarding substantive offences and against appellants with respect to various offences read with s. 109 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and convicted them of the various offences read with s. 34 P.C. Their appeals to the High Court also failed.

On appeal by Special Leave the appellants mainly contended that the learned Sessions Judge misdirected the jury with respect to the requirements of s. 34 I.P.C. It was urged that the various offences were actually committed by accused No. 1, that the appellants were not present when accused No.

1 presented the forged railway receipts, did other criminal acts and took 'delivery of the goods and that therefore even if they had agreed with accused No. 1 for the cheating of the railway by obtaining the goods dishonestly by presenting the forged receipt. they might have abetted the commission of the various offences, but could not lye guilty of those offences with the aid of s. 34 I.P.C. whose provisions do not apply in the circumstances of the case. For the applicability of s. 34 against an accused, it is necessary that that accused had actually participated in the commission of the crime either by doing something which forms part of the criminal act or by at least doing something which would indicate that he was a participant in the commission of that criminal act at the time, it was committed.

Held: In the present case, accused No. 1 alone did the various acts which constituted the offences of which he was convicted. The appellants took no part in the actual commission of those acts. Whatever they might have done prior to the doing of those acts, did not form an ingredient of the offences committed by accused No. 1. They could not be said to have participated in the commission of the criminal act which amounted to those various offences. They could not be therefore held liable, by virtue of s. 34

I.P.C., for the acts committed by accused No. 1 alone, even if those acts had been committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the three accused. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants, for the various offences read with s. 34 I.P.C. must be set aside.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor, (1929) L.R. 52

I.A. 40, Shree Kantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay

[1955] 1 S.C.R. 1177 and Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v.

State of Bombay [1960] 3 S.C.R. 319, referred to.

922

See the full content of this document

Extract

Shiv Prasad Chunilal Jain VS. The State Of Maharashtra

PETITIONER: SHIV PRASAD CHUNILAL JAIN Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1964

BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

SUBBARAO, K.

MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

CITATION: 1965 AIR 264 1964 SCR (6) 920

ACT: Criminal Trial-Whether the person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime-Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention-Essence of-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), s. 34.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 150 and 185 of 1961.

Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 19, 1961 of the former Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 218 and 242 of 1961 respectively.

S. Mohan Kumarmangalam, R. K. Garg and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 150/61).

B. M. Mistry, Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 185 of 1961).

B. K. Khanna, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent (in both the appeals).

February 26, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAGHUBAR DAYAL J.-Shiv Prasad Chunilal Jain, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1961 was accused No. 3 and Pyarelal Ishwardas Kapoor, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

185 of 1961 was accused No. 2, at the Sessions Trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. Along with them was a third accused, Rameshwarnath Brijmohan Shukla who...

See the full content of this document