CASE ANALYSIS

of

Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. Emperor

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

AMISHA GAUTAM PROF. DR. SONIA

UID: 18BAL1099

SEMESTER: Vth

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY

GHARUAN, MOHALI

Page 1
 Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. Emperor AIR 1925 PC

CASE CITATION: AIR 1925 Cal 545

BENCH: Atkinson, Sumner, J. Edge

FACTS OF THE CASE

 On August 3, 1923, the sub-postmaster at Sankaritolla post office was counting

money at his table in the back room, several men appeared at the door which leads
into the room from courtyard, and went inside the door, called on him to give up the
money. Almost immediately afterwards they fired pistols at him.
 He was hit in two places, one in hand and near the armpit, and died instantaneously.
Without taking any money the assailants fled, separating as they ran.
 One man was held by the post assistant, this was the appellate. Others accused fled
from the scene.
 The evidence with the jury pointed out to the presence of three accused at the crime
scene that fired at the post master, the accused was identified due to the distinct
clothes he wore.
 According to the prosecutor he was one of the person that fired at the post master, the
accused denied his charge on the ground that he was standing outside and had no
direct involvement in the commission of crime of murder of the post master as he did
not fire the shots.
 Charges preferred were of murder under section 302, voluntary causing hurt under
section 394 and attempt to commit robbery.
 To the first charge the accused pleaded not guilty. And to the second charge he
pleaded guilty of robbery.

Page 2
ISSUES

1. Whether the appellant can be convicted under section 302 r/w section34 or not?
2. Whether a person is liable for the acts of the others?
3. Whether physical presence is necessary on the scene of crime or not?

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT

 The appellant argued that he was the man standing outside the room and he did not
knew, what was going inside the room.
 The appellant contended that he was only standing outside to guard the post office
and he did not have intention to kill the post master.
 Also, the appellant did not fire to the post master so, he should not be charged with
the offence of murder under section 302.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PROSECUTION

The prosecution argued that the three men were just inside the room and another was
visible from the room through the door standing close to the others but just outside on the
doorstep in the courtyard. This man was armed but did not fire.

Page 3
JUDGEMENT

The appellant was found guilty and was convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34. Though
he has not committed the murder but waiting for the assailants amounts to abetting the
murder and they were sharing common intention to kill the post master as they all were
carrying pistols. Moreover, it was pre planned not incidental.

REASONING

 Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several
persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for
result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for ‘that act’ in the latter part of the
section must include the whole action covered by a criminal act ‘in first part because
the refer to it’. In other words, ‘criminal act’ means that unity of criminal behavior
which results in something for which an individual would be responsible if it were all
done by himself alone, that is, in a criminal offence.
 The apex court has held that it is the essence of section 34 that the person should be
present on the scene of the crime but the physical presence does not amount to the
presence of the person in the actual room of the crime, he can stand, guard or be ready
to warn his companions about the imminent danger that may prop up or maybe plan
an escape root for his companions by facilitating the escape, but his participation is a
must in some way or the other when the crime is being committed. However, there is
an exception to this as well as in every case the participation may not be physical
presence as in offences of physical violence where the presence at the scene of the
crime may be necessary but in cases where offence consists of diverse acts which may
be done at different time and places the applicability of physical presence is not a
necessity.

Page 4