This decision sets a precedent for the Indian Penal Code, 1860’s (IPC) common intention provisions.
barendra kumar ghosh vs king emperor Case Facts
- Armed with guns, the accused and three other individuals arrived at a post office on the day of the crime.
- Three of them, including the accused, went inside and demanded money from the Postmaster while the fourth remained outside.
- All three of them fired their weapons in response to the latter’s vocal resistance, and one of the shots killed the postmaster.
- The latter’s yell set off an alert, and the four guys started to flee.
- The defendant discharged his handgun many times as he ran away before being apprehended.
- Because the Trial Court was convinced that the dead was slain in “furtherance of the common intention of all,” it found the accused guilty of Murder under section 302 of the ipc read with common intention under section 34 of the ipc.
- The High Court heard an appeal that challenged the purpose of section 34 of the ipc, ruling that it defines a “criminal act” rather than creating a new crime and instead establishes a theory of responsibility.
- The High Court ruled that there is no distinction between the two categories being recognized when an act is performed by multiple people who are all principals in the act, regardless of whether they are principals in the first or second degree.
- In accordance with section 34 of the ipc and section 302 of the ipc, the High Court found the accused individual guilty.
- The appellant filed an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s ruling, and the bench of Justices Sumner, John Edge, and Atkinson heard it.
barendra kumar ghosh vs king emperor Issues
- Is it possible for the appellant to be found guilty under section 302 of the ipc read with section 34 of the ipc?
- Is an individual accountable for the deeds of others?
- Is it required for someone to be physically present at the crime scene?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The appellant contended that since he was the one outside the room, he had no idea what was happening within.
- The appellant said that he had no intention of killing the post master and was merely outside watching the post office.
- Furthermore, as the appellant did not shoot the postmaster, he should not be prosecuted for murder under section 302 of the ipc.
Prosecution:
- The prosecution contended that the three men were only inside the room, and that additional man could be seen standing near the others outside on the courtyard doorstep and via the door from the interior of the room. Despite being armed, this man did not fire.
barendra kumar ghosh vs king emperor Judgment
- According to the Privy Council, Section 34 addresses the performance of distinct acts, whether identical or dissimilar, by many people. If these acts are carried out in support of a single goal, each individual is held accountable for the outcome of all of the acts, just as if he had carried them out alone.
- The Council also talked about the difference between intention and object. If an object is shared, then different members may have different purposes, even if they are similar in that they are all illegal.
- The purpose of the 1870 Amendment to section 34 of the ipc was to penalize participants by holding one person accountable for the deeds of another, so long as the deeds were carried out in the service of a common goal.
- Vicarious or group responsibility is introduced by this amendment.
- According to the Council, “a criminal act” under section 34 of the ipc refers to a cohesive pattern of criminal behaviour, meaning that acts committed in concert with others to advance a common goal shall be punished in the same way as if the individual had committed them all alone.
- The Privy Council rejected the appeal and maintained the Calcutta High Court’s ruling.
The main legal question is whether, on the theory of common purpose, Ghose could still be found guilty of murder even though he did not fire the final shot. The Privy Council maintained the conviction, ruling that each person is accountable for the actions of others carried out in pursuit of a joint plan where multiple people have a common intention to commit a crime.
This established the notion that each person may be held liable for the results of their collective activities under Section 34 of the IPC, a situation known as vicarious responsibility. Indian criminal law has been significantly impacted by this judgment, which has expanded the definition of criminal culpability and clarified how Section 34 should be applied.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
