DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

__________________________________________________________________________

FINAL DRAFT

Case Comment :

Rana Pratap and Ors. v State of Haryana

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. K.A.Pandey Sana Jamal

Asst. Prof (Law) Roll No. : 105

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya B.A.LL.B(Hons.)

National Law University 3rd Semester

TITLE OF THE PROJECT
Case Comment: Rana Pratap and Ors. v State of Haryana

CITATION
AIR1983SC680

BENCH
D Desai, O C Reddy

FACTS
A party of three spotted their common foe and to teach him a lesson, two held him and the third
started stabbing him. They ran away when they were counter-attacked, but the injured died. The
Supreme Court came to the conclusion that about the two accused who were merely holding the
deceased, it could not be said that they knew that their victim would be stabbed to death, nor
there was proof of the fact that they continuously held him through all the stab wounds, but they
did have the common intention of causing grievous injuries.

There was a ill feeling between deceased and Manmohan. On the day of occurrence the deceased
and his brother, while going towards their shops, met the three accused Rana Pratap, Satpal and
Manmohan, who were coming from the opposite direction. Manmohan shouted that he would
teach a lesson to the deceased who had insulted him. Thereupon Rana Pratap and Satpal caught
hold of him and Manmohan gave him stab injuries. The deceaseds brother then attacked the
accused with his belt and a milk vendor and a vegetable and fruit hawker who witnessed the
occurrence threw brickbats at the accused. The accused then ran away. The deceased succumbed
to his injuries. The trial court acquitted all the accused but the High Court convicted them under
section 302 and sections 302/34 of IPC. Confirming the conviction and sentence of Manmohan
under section 302 of IPC but altering the conviction of Rana Pratap and Satpal to that under
sections 326/34 the Supreme Court.
Chinnappa Reddy, J.
Rana Partap, Manmohan alias Pappi and Sat Pal were tried by the learned Sessions Judge,
Karnal--Manmohan for an offence under Section 302 IPC and Rana Partap and Sat Pal for an
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were acquitted by the learned
Sessions Judge, but on appeal by the State, the order of acquittal was reversed and they were
convicted under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life. They have preferred this appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargement
of Jurisdiction (criminal) Act.
In Rana Pratap, the Supreme Court observed as under:- There were three eye witnesses. One was
the brother of the deceased and the other two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who
was carrying milk to the dairy and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart
along the road. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned Counsel described both the
independent witnesses as chance witnesses implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious
and their presence at the scene doubtful.

ISSUES
Whether the appellant could be held liable under section 34 of IPC or not
How far appellants contention for no common intention is justified?
Whether appellant could be liable for grievous hurt or not

LAW IN QUESTION
Indian penal code, 1860 sections 34,302 and 326 common intention to commit murder, held
on facts, not fully established common intention to commit grievous hurt proved.

Sec.34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Sec.302: Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also
be liable to fine.

Sec.326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means -

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by
means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by
means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to
receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

DECISION
The circumstances of the case clearly establish existence of common intention. But the evidence
is not very clear whether Rana Pratap and Satpal continued to hold the deceased even after
Manmohan started stabbing him. Neither Rana Pratap nor Satpal is alleged to have said anything
to indicate that they wanted the deceased to be done away with. There is nothing to indicate that
they knew that Manmohan would cause fatal injuries to the deceased, though they must have
anticipated. The common intention of the accused has not been established, beyond reasonable
doubt, to be to cause the death of the deceased. But it certainly was to cause grievous injuries to
the deceased. The conviction of Rana Pratap and Satpal under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and the sentence of life imprisonment are therefore set aside and instead they are
convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for a period of five years each. So far Manmohan is concerned, the three stab injuries inflicted by
him are sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death. His conviction and sentence are
confirmed.
CASE COMMENT
The question in this case is whether Rana Pratap and Sat Pal can be said to have shared a
common intention with Manmohan to kill the deceased so as to be liable for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that there was ill-
feeling between Manmohan and the deceased as the deceased was demanding from
Manmohan money which was due to him and in that connection, he had abused and slapped
him a few days earlier. On the day of occurrence, which was a Sunday, the deceased and his
brother, Yash Pal, third witness, were going towards their shops in order to clean them. On the
way they were met by Manmohan, Rana Partap and Sat Pal. who came from the opposite
direction. Manmohan shouted that he would teach a lesson to the deceased who had insulted
him. Thereupon Rana Partap and Sat Pal caught hold of him and Manmohan gave him stab
injuries on the right side of the abdomen, left side of the chest and left shoulder. Yash Pal
brother of the deceased then took out his belt which he was wearing around his waist and
attacked the accused with it. Fourth and fifth witness, a milk vendor and a vegetable and fruit
hawker, who also witnessed the occurrence, threw brick-bats at the accused. The accused left
the deceased and ran away. The deceased was then taken to the hospital where he died later.
Yash Pal, third witness went to the Police Station and gave the First Information Report.
The evidence, while it discloses that there was some previous trouble between the deceased
and Manmohan, does not disclose any special ill-feeling between the deceased and Rana
Partap and Sat Pal. But the circumstance that the three accused came together, and that
two of them held deceased while the third one stabbed him clearly indicates that they
shared some common intention. The question is whether the common intention was to do
away with the deceased? The evidence is not very clear whether Rana Partap and Sat Pal
continued to hold the deceased even after Manmohan started stabbing him. Neither Rana
Partap nor Sat Pal is alleged to have said anything to indicate that they wanted the deceased to
be done away with. Manmohan himself did not say that he was going to finish the deceased.
He only said that he wanted to teach him a lesson. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold
that the only inference possible is that Rana Partap and Sat Pal shared the common intention
with Manmohan to kill the deceased. No doubt they held the deceased and this facilitated the
stabbing by Manmohan. But there is nothing whatever to indicate that they knew that
Manmohan would cause fatal injuries to the deceased, though they must have anticipated that
he would cause grievous injuries. It is one of those borderline cases where one may with equal
justification infer that the common intention was to commit murder or to cause grievous
injury. But the benefit of any such doubt must go to the accused. In the circumstances, we
conclude, but not with out hesitation, that the common intention of the accused has not been
established, beyond reasonable doubt, to be to cause the death of the deceased. But it certainly
was to cause grievous injuries to the deceased. The conviction of Rana Partap and Sat Pal
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and the sentence of life imprisonment are therefore set
aside and instead they are convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 and sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each. So far Manmohan is concerned,
the three stab injuries inflicted by him are sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause
death. His conviction and sentence are confirmed.
Common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a
man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in
furtherance of the common intention of them all. Accordingly there must be prior meeting of
minds. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the intention, namely
the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would
have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds
to form a pre-arranged plan. In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever
injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others; and if
the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the
murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case.

Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common
intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and
shared by them. What to speak of similar intention even same intention without sharing each
others intention without sharing each others intention is not enough for this section.

Common intention: how proved:-

Undoubtedly it is a difficult thing to prove even the intention of an individual and therefore, it is
all more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. But however difficult
may be the task, the prosecution must lead evidence of facts, circumstances and conduct of the
accused from which their common intention can be safely gathered.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. All India Reporter

2. Ratanlal and Dheerajlals The Indian Penal Code (Book)
3. Indian Penal Code,1860 (Bare Act)