Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024- BNS/ Indian Penal Code

THE BHARTATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) AND THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC) | SUPREME COURT ANNUAL DIGEST 2024CORRESPONDING SECTIONS and COMPARISON SUMMARYSection 3 (5) - General explanations - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention[Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change.]Section 34 – Applicability of - Murder - Sentencing – Doctrine of Parity – Individual Culpability of Co-Accused – The appellant argued for sentence reduction on grounds of parity with co-accused, citing the acquittal of one co-accused and the reduced sentence of another. Held, the doctrine of parity applies only when co-accused share similar levels of culpability and involvement in the crime. The evidence established that the appellant's actions were distinct and more culpable. While the co-accused wielded sticks and caused non-fatal injuries, the appellant alone used a knife to inflict fatal injuries on the deceased, signifying a deliberate escalation of violence. There was no evidence to show a common intention among the accused to commit murder, precluding the application of vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC. The reduced sentence of one co-accused was based on the lesser nature of his involvement, while another was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that parity in sentencing is not automatic and must consider the qualitative differences in actions and intent among co-accused. The appellant's role, marked by clear intent and use of a deadly weapon, warranted a distinct and more severe sentence. The principle of parity was inapplicable given the appellant's materially different and more culpable conduct. Appeal for sentence reduction dismissed. Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 964Section 34 IPC – Common intention – The existence of common intention in a given case must necessarily be established by the Prosecution with relevant evidence. The Court also has the responsibility to analyze and assess the evidence before convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Importantly, a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC without action in furtherance of such common intention. (Para 19, 22 & 25) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418Section 34 & 149 IPC – Difference between common intention and common object – There is a significant distinction between Section 34 and Section 149 of IPC. Section 34 requires active participation and prior meeting of minds whereas Section 149 assigns liability merely by membership of an unlawful assembly and has a wider scope than Section 34 IPC. (Para 15) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418Section 34 & 149 IPC – Power of courts to alter charge – It is permissible for Courts to alter charges but it can only be done by careful analysis of evidence and the reasons for the same must be recorded in the judgment. The “proof” of “common intention” is necessary to alter conviction from Section 149 to 34 of IPC. In the present case no charge under Section 34 of the IPC was laid against the accused by the Prosecution but when the charge under Section 149 IPC was dropped, the trial Court decided to conveniently alter the charge and with the aid of Section 34 IPC, ordered for conviction of the accused. Held, common intention of the appellants is not established by the prosecution. Further held, the Court while altering the charge from Section 149 to Section 34 IPC omitted to furnish any reasons. Hence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and their conviction is unsustainable. (Para 17, 19, 20, 21) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418Section 34 & 494 IPC – Charged with common intention to commit offence of Bigamy – Held, in order to bring home the said charge, the complainant would be required to prima facie prove not only the presence of the accused persons, but the overt act or omission of the accused persons in the second marriage ceremony and also establish that such accused were aware about the subsisting first marriage. Held, mere presence in the marriage is not enough to establish common intention to commit offence of Bigamy. Further, there is no allegation that the accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge of the first marriage. Hence, the charge is not established. (Para 17 & 18) S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 385Section 34 & 120B IPC – Since the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non est. (Para 30) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251 : (2024) 7 SCC 555Section 34 IPC – Subjective test of Intention - A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024- BNS/ Indian Penal Code

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags