Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anda and Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan

4 min read

Citations: Anda and Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148

Date of Judgement: 27/10/2003

Equivalent citations:  AIR 1966 SC 148

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Appellant: Anda and Ors.

Respondent: State of Rajasthan

Bench: Hon’ble Justice K Wanchoo, Hon’ble Justice M H Mudholkar, Hon’ble Justice S Sikri

Court: Supreme Court

Statutes Referred:

  • Indian Penal Code,1860; Section 34, 35, 38, 149, 299, 300, 302, 304, 325, 326

Cases Referred:

  • Brij Bhukhan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 474, 1957 CriLJ 591
  • Oswal Danji Tejsi Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1961 Guj 16, 1961 CriLJ 251, (1960) GLR 145

Facts:

  • The event occurred on June 29, 1961, at around 5 or 5:30 a.m. in the village of Hindas. A group of people assaulted one Bherun son of Girdhari Jat, causing him several injuries. On the same day, he died as a result.
  • The prosecution demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Bherun and his father Girdhari were at odds with the appellants and that criminal actions were pending between them.
  • Bherun had gone to Hindas with a servant to care to his crops, according to the prosecution. He was on his way to the fields when he was apprehended by Anda and Roopla as he passed the residence of Bhagu and was assaulted.
  • They and the other defendants pulled him into the residence and physically abused him. Bherun held fiercely to the door jamb to prevent being pulled inside, but Anda and Roopla beat him on the hands with their sticks, forcing him to loosen his grip.
  • His cries drew the attention of his neighbours, and one of them, Moda (P. W. 8) attempted to rescue him but was beaten back.
  • The evidence demonstrating the presence and involvement of these appellants in the attack was accepted by both the High Court and the Sessions Judge at the same time, and the conclusions on this section of the case must be viewed as established.

Issues:

  • Whether Section 302, when read in conjunction with Section 34, applied to the circumstances of the case.

Contention of the Respondent:

  • There is no doubt that the appellants were motivated by a common intention, which must have been the consequence of a prior agreement, taking into account the time, location, and circumstances of Bherun’s visit. As it can be seen later, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was correctly invoked, and that part of the case presents no difficulties.

Contention of Appellant:

  • The deliberate harm is the determining element, and it must be severe enough to cause death in the natural run of things. If the planned harm cannot be considered to be sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature, that is, if the likelihood of death is not high enough, the crime is classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder or something less.

Judgement:

The appeal was dismissed.

The court concluded that in the present case, The injuries intended to be induced were adequate to cause death in the ordinary means. The assault was clearly deadly, and all of the attackers must have known that the injuries they were inflicting in the name of the shared goal were sufficient to induce death in the usual course of nature. It is impossible to say that the crime was not murder but simply culpable homicide not amounting to murder in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • Of course, no case can be considered a factual authority. In the last case, an inference was made based on facts that were not the same. Whether the accused shared a certain knowledge or purpose is always an issue of fact. A shared goal, that is, some prior concert, must be sought, as well as what that common intention is. There does not need to be a significant amount of time between the establishment of the intent and the act since common intention can be developed at any time.
  • Then there’s the need that the injuries that were meant to be caused were adequate to induce death in the natural order of things. Next, we must determine whether the accused had knowledge that the injuries they intended to cause were sufficient to cause death in the usual course of nature.
  • When these conditions are discovered and death is caused by injuries that are both intended to be caused and sufficient in the usual course of nature to cause death, each participant is guilty of murder.

Conclusion:

The Apex Court dismissed the contentions of the Learned Counsel on the behalf of the Anda and Ors. Stating that the conditions discovered based on facts and evidence in the present case are sufficient to prove that death was caused in ordinary course of causing death and thus each person is liable for murder.

Drafted by: Sachika Vij, Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: January 04, 2021 at 12:25 IST