/2022 INSC 0205/ 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 of the Calcutta High Court dated 23 rd  December 2008. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2 2. The   incident   is   of   2 nd   August   1976.   PW1   Shri   Khiroda 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 3. On the earlier date, this Court directed the learned counsel 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   Rajkishore Purohit   v . State of   Madhya   Pradesh   and   others 1 ,   Dhanpal   v .   State   (NCT   of Delhi) 2   and   Pandurang,   Tukia   and   Bhillia   v .   State   of Hyderabad 3 .     He   submitted   that   no   interference   is   called   for with the judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. The prosecution’s case is that PW1 and the deceased were proceeding   to   their   village   at   about   5.30   in   the   evening   on   2 nd 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.   11. Accordingly,   the   impugned   judgments   and   orders   dated 23 rd   December   2008   and   5 th   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.