Sunil v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 688/2011

Brief facts

  • What are the requirements to invoke the section 34 IPC?
  • What is the effect of raising plea belatedly of not putting questions regarding the incriminating circumstances under section 313 CrPC?

Issues

  • What are the requirements to invoke the section 34 IPC?
  • What is the effect of raising plea belatedly of not putting questions regarding the incriminating circumstances under section 313 CrPC?

Held

  • The Apex court set aside sentence under the section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. However, the appellants were convicted under the section 307 r/w section 34 IPC.
  • What is clear from the decisions noticed above is, that to fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of common intention of all. Common intention presupposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted.
  • The legal position that emerges, inter-alia, is that to enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused.

Relevant Para no.

  • 29, 44

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

"Disclaimer & Confirmation As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, user acknowledges the following:​

There has been no advertisements, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website; user wishes to gain more information about Mohit Khandelwal and Associates and its attorneys for his/her own information and use;

The information about us is provided to the user on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at their own volition and any transmission.

We are not responsible for any reliance that a user places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage.

However, the user is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources."