Anda And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan
AIR 1966 SC 148 -
Date of judgement - 9 March, 1965
1957 SC 474 -
AIR 1961 Guj 16 -
Supreme Court of India
- Wanchoo, Kailas Nath, Justice
- Hidayatullah, Mohammad, Justice
- Mudholkar, Janardan Raghunath, Justice
- Sikri, Sarv Mittra, Justice
Names of parties:
Appellant - Anda And Ors.
Respondent - State of Rajasthan
Behrun was the son of Girdhari Jat. He was attacked by several people and got
hurt badly. As a result, he died on June 29, 1961, the same day of the attack.
The respondent showed that Girdhari Jat and his son Behrun were not friendly
with the appellants. The event took place in the village of Hindas early in the
morning, between 5 and 5:30 AM, when Behrun was there to take care of his farms.
As he made his way, he crossed the house of Bhagu, who was originally charged
but later found not guilty. While there, Anda and Roopla beat him up and caught
him. As he was being dragged inside, Behrun screamed for help and tried to run
away. He even held on tight to the door frame to try to avoid being dragged
inside, but the attackers hit him on the hands with lathis to break his grip. A
friend named Mooda (Prosecution Witness 8) heard the screams and tried to help
the victim but was pushed away.
Behrun is taken to the hospital after being beaten badly and checked out by Mr.
C.L. Sablok, who is the Medical Officer in Charge of the Merta City Dispensary.
At the hospital, he looked at Behrun's wound when he was barely living, but it
was during the autopsy, after Behrun had died, that he saw the wound more
The report went into depth about the different injuries that were done to
Behrun's body and what killed him.There were 30 wounds and bruises on the body
of the person who had died. As he worked on the autopsy report, the doctor came
to the conclusion that the person had died from shock and syncope caused by
multiple cuts and bruises. Which, on their own, weren't enough to cause that
death, but when put together, they were enough to cause death in normal course
Legal Issues Raised
The legal issue raised this case is whether the wrong committed by the appellant
comes under culpable homicide amounting not to murder under ipc section 299
or is it a murder under IPC section 300.
Rule of Law
Article 136 - Article 136 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court the
power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India, except for military
tribunals and court-martials. This means that the Supreme Court can choose to
hear an appeal from any case, regardless of whether it was originally appealed
to a lower court.
PROVISIONS OF STATUTES
The current case cited many provisions from the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to acts committed by multiple
individuals in the pursuit of a shared goal.
This clause stipulates that in cases where multiple individuals engage in a
criminal act with a shared intention to perform said act, each person involved
is held accountable as if the crime was carried out by a single individual. The
term "common intention" denotes the existence of premeditation, namely, a
prearranged agreement and active participation of all individuals within the
collective in the execution of that plan.
Section 35 pertains to acts that are deemed unlawful due to their commission
with a criminal knowledge or intention.
The text primarily discusses the concept of joint culpability in relation to the
collective pursuit of a shared action, accompanied by criminal awareness or
intent. This would result in the equitable imposition of liability onto all
individuals involved in the commission of the offense.
Section 38 Individuals involved in criminal activities may potentially be
held accountable for several offenses.
The statement elucidates that in instances where multiple perpetrators are
engaged in the commission of a criminal act, they may be held accountable for
distinct offenses. In the given scenario, if individual A initiates an assault
on person X at a gravesite due to a sudden provocation, and individual B,
motivated by animosity towards person Z, also participates in the assault,
resulting in the death of person Z, the legal liability of A would be
categorized as culpable homicide not equal to murder. However, B would be held
accountable for the offense of murder.
Section 299 of the legal code pertains to the offense of culpable homicide.
According to Section 299, culpable murder is defined as the act of one
individual causing the death of another human being, for which the perpetrator
bears legal or moral responsibility.
Section 300 of the legal code pertains to the offense of murder.
A murder might be understood as a specific manifestation of responsible
homicide. Every instance of murder can be classified as culpable homicide, but
not every instance of culpable homicide can be classified as murder. Culpable
homicide might be classified as a broader category, while murder can be seen as
a specific type within this category.
Section 302 of the legal code pertains to the prescribed penalties for the
crime of murder.
This section encompasses the provisions pertaining to the penalization of the
act of Murder, which encompasses the imposition of life imprisonment as well as
the possibility of capital punishment.
Contention of the parties
Contention of the Respondent:
The appellants were clearly motivated by a common intention to kill Bherun, as
evidenced by their prior agreement and the circumstances of his visit. This is
supported by Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that when several
people commit an act in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable
for the act as if it were done by them alone. Therefore, the court correctly
invoked this section in this case.
The appellants also claimed that the accused committed murder under Section
300(1) and (3) of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide committed with the
intention to cause death or with the knowledge that the act is so dangerous that
it is likely to cause death. This is a more serious offense than culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 299 of the
Contention of Appellant:
The main factor in deciding whether a crime is murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder is whether the intended harm was significant enough to
typically cause death. If the harm was not severe enough to cause death under
normal circumstances, meaning that the chance of death was not high enough, then
the crime is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder or a less
In other words, murder is defined as killing someone with the intention to kill
them or with the knowledge that your actions are so dangerous that they are
likely to kill them. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on the other
hand, is killing someone without the intention to kill them or the knowledge
that your actions are likely to kill them.
The key difference between these two offenses is the degree of harm that was
intended. If the intended harm was significant enough to typically cause death,
then the crime is murder. If the intended harm was not significant enough to
typically cause death, then the crime is culpable homicide not amounting to
murder or a less serious offense.
The appeal was dismissed and the order of the high court was upheld. All the
four accused were convicted of Murder under section 302 read with section 34 of
RATIO DECIDENDI (reason behind the decision)
"No case can, of course, be an authority on facts. In the last case inference
was drawn from facts which were different. It is always a question of fact as to
whether the accused shared a particular knowledge or intent. One must look for a
common intention, that is to say, some prior concert and what that common
It is not necessary that there should be an appreciable passage of
time between the formation of the intent and the act for common intention may be
formed at any time. Next one must look for the requisite ingredient that the
injuries which were intended to be caused were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
Next, we must see if the accused possessed the
knowledge that the injuries, they were intending to cause were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. When these circumstances are found and
death is, in fact, caused by injuries which are intended to be caused and which
are, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death the resulting
offence of each participant is murder."
Thus, the ratio defines a criterion on how to decide whether a death caused by
multiple assailants under circumstances like of the case itself is Murder or not
and that section 34 is applicable only on case to case basis.
Oswal Danji Tejsi Vs. State
Three people were convicted of causing serious injury to another person, but not
murder. The victim was attacked by the three people and suffered 21 injuries,
two of which were fatal. The court found that the attackers did not intend to
kill the victim, but that their actions were still serious enough to be
considered grievous hurt.
Justice Hidayatullah criticized the court's decision, arguing that the judges
should have considered the fact that the injuries inflicted were sufficient to
cause death. He believed that the attackers should have been convicted of
Brij Bhukhan And Ors. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
The appellant, who was sentenced to death for killing a passerby, has filed an
appeal against the verdict. The appeal was rejected and the death sentence was
The court found that the appellant inflicted multiple injuries on the victim
with the intention of killing him. The court also found that, when considered
together, the injuries were of a severity capable of resulting in death.
The court has the jurisdiction to examine the severity of the injuries inflicted
and determine whether, when considered together, they were significant enough to
result in death under normal circumstances. In this particular case, the court
found that the appellant's actions amounted to murder under Clause 3 of Section
300 of the Indian Penal Code.
Present status of the judgement
The judgement is still valid and it has not been overruled by a higher bench.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 299.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 300.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 34.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 35.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 38.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 299.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), � 302.
- Anda And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148.
- Oswal Danji Tejsi Vs. State, AIR 1961 Guj 16.
- Brij Bhukhan And Ors. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 SC 474.