Case Analysis: Rishideo Pande vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Case Details

Case name: Rishideo Pande vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: S.R. Das, J.
Date of decision: 3 February 1955
Proceeding type: Appeal

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On the night of 4‑5‑June‑1953, at about one o’clock in the morning, two eye‑witnesses, Baney Pandey and Subrati, were awakened by a blow and saw Ram Lochan and the appellant, Rishideo Pande, standing near the cot on which the victim, Sheomurat, was sleeping. Ram Lochan was armed with a gandasa and the appellant held a lathi. The post‑mortem report and the witnesses indicated that a single incised wound on the victim’s neck had been inflicted by Ram Lochan after he lifted the gandasa; no injury attributable to the appellant’s lathi was found. After a hue and cry was raised, Ram Lochan and the appellant fled together, were later declared absconders, and eventually surrendered before a magistrate following the commencement of proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was examined under Section 342 of the CrPC and denied any participation in the murder.

The Sessions Judge of Ghazipur, after observing the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses, concluded that the three accused—Rishideo Pande, his brother Ram Lochan Pandey, and Banslochan—had proceeded to the scene with a pre‑meditated intention to kill Sheomurat, that the fatal blow was delivered by Ram Lochan, and that the appellant’s presence armed with a lathi constituted participation in the common intention. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court.

The High Court granted Banslochan the benefit of doubt and allowed his appeal, but dismissed the appeals of Ram Lochan and Rishideo Pande, confirming their convictions and death sentences. The present appeal before the Supreme Court of India was filed solely by Rishideo Pande, challenging the conviction and the death sentence.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was called upon to determine (i) whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was proper, given that the appellant had not delivered the fatal blow but had been present armed at the scene, and (ii) whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant should be affirmed.

The appellant, through counsel Sri Umrigar, contended that Section 34 had been misapplied because the record did not disclose a pre‑arranged plan or common intention between him and Ram Lochan to murder Sheomurat. He argued that the inference of such intention was unfounded, that the prosecution evidence was unreliable, and that the extreme penalty of death was disproportionate since he had not inflicted the lethal injury.

The State maintained that the coordinated presence of the accused, their armament, and their joint flight after the fatal blow demonstrated a common intention to kill. It submitted that the fatal wound inflicted by Ram Lochan was committed in furtherance of that shared intention, thereby justifying conviction of all participants under Section 34 and upholding the death sentence.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that when an act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each is liable for the act. The Court also referred to Sections 87, 88 and 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the procedure for taking accused into custody and the examination of accused.

The settled legal principle reiterated by the Court is that Section 34 presupposes a prior concert of minds—a pre‑arranged plan—which may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties even in the absence of direct evidence. The Court relied on the precedent set in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, which held that the existence of a common intention does not require a long interval between its formation and the commission of the act. The legal test applied required the Court to examine whether the act causing death was committed in furtherance of a common intention shared by the accused prior to the act, assessing factors such as presence at the scene, armament, and coordinated conduct.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court examined the appellant’s contention that no common intention could be inferred. It recalled that Section 34 requires a prior concert of minds, which may be deduced from the factual matrix. The Court noted that the Sessions Judge and the High Court had both inferred a pre‑meditated common intention from the eyewitness testimony, the presence of weapons, and the coordinated escape of the accused. No credible innocent explanation had been offered to rebut this inference.

Applying the legal test, the Court found that the appellant and Ram Lochan were together at the victim’s cot, both armed, and that Ram Lochan delivered the fatal blow while the appellant stood at the foot of the cot with a lathi. The joint flight of the two accused after the blow further indicated a shared purpose. Accordingly, the Court held that the factual circumstances satisfied the requirement of a common intention and that liability under Section 34 extended to the appellant despite his not delivering the fatal wound.

The Court also observed that the evidentiary record comprised consistent eyewitness testimony, a post‑mortem report confirming a single neck wound, and corroborative statements of additional witnesses identifying the accused fleeing the scene. The appellant’s denial under Section 342 was noted but was outweighed by the credibility attributed to the prosecution witnesses. Procedurally, the conviction had already been affirmed by the High Court, and the appeal was limited to the question of misapplication of Section 34; no new evidence was introduced.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rishideo Pande. It refused to set aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and upheld the death sentence that had been confirmed by the High Court. The Court’s decision affirmed that the appellant shared a common intention to murder Sheomurat, that Section 34 was correctly applied to the facts, and that the death penalty remained valid. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were left intact.