Rishidev Pandey V. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 331

Facts of the Case 

On the nighttime of the incident, Rishidev Pandey, his brother Ram Lochan Pandey, and their  associate Banslochan had been involved in the homicide of a man named Sheomurat. The  activities spread out inside the village in which the victim was napping on a cot. Eyewitnesses testified that Rishidev and Ram Lochan had been seen standing close to the cot, with Ram  Lochan armed with a ‘gandasa’ (a form of conventional weapon) and Rishidev conserving a ‘lathi’  (a timber stick). Banslochan turned into positioned close to the door, acting as a lookout. As the  night progressed, Ram Lochan lifted the ‘gandasa’ and inflicted a deadly blow to Sheomurat’s  neck. This blow was stated to be an incised wound, which medical evidence later confirmed as  necessarily fatal. Notably, there have been no symptoms of any blows from the ‘lathi’ at the  sufferer, indicating that Rishidev did now not directly take part within the act of homicide. Upon hearing the commotion and cries for assistance, both Rishidev and Ram Lochan fled the scene  collectively, leaving Banslochan at the back of. The brothers absconded right away after the  incident but surrendered to the government. They have been subjected to court cases under Sections 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for his or her absence. Following the  investigation, the Sessions Judge convicted all 3 guys beneath Section 3021 of the Indian Penal  Code (IPC) for murder, together with Section 342, which relates to acts executed in furtherance  of not unusual aim. Each of them acquired a demise sentence, pending confirmation through the  High Court. While Ram Lochan and Banslochan ordinary their sentences and did not attraction,  Rishidev contested the ruling, leading to the existing attraction.  

Procedural history: 

Initial Proceedings The case began when Rishidev Pandey, his brother Ram Lochan Pandey, and  their associate Banslochan had been charged with the murder of Sheomurat. The Sessions Court  conducted a trial in which the prosecution supplied evidence, including eyewitness bills, that  established the involvement of all 3 accused in the homicide. The Sessions Judge found them  guilty under Section 302 of the IPC, which relates to murder, and Section 34, which addresses  

1 Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 

2 Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code 1860

acts completed in furtherance of not unusual intention. The trial court docket sentenced all three  to death, considering the gravity of the crime. 

High Court Appeal 

Following their conviction, the 3 accused appealed to the High Court. However, Ram Lochan  and Banslochan did now not contest their sentences and usual the death penalty. The High Court,  consequently, focused its evaluation on Rishidev Pandey’s attraction. The court examined the  evidence, and the arguments offered regarding the unusual intention shared by some of the  accused. The High Court upheld the conviction and the dying sentence for Rishidev, confirming  that the presence of all 3 on the scene and their actions indicated a premeditated goal to kill. 

Supreme Court Proceedings  

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s selection, Rishidev Pandey appealed to the Supreme Court of  India. The Supreme Court became tasked with reviewing the application of Section 34 of the IPC  in this context. The bench, comprising Justices S. Das, Bhagwati, and J. Imam, analyzed whether  Rishidev could be held answerable for homicide despite now turning in the fatal blow. The  Supreme Court’s deliberation centered on the concept of not unusual intention, spotting that it  can expand spontaneously at the scene of a criminal offense. The Court concluded that the  actions of Rishidev and his brother demonstrated a shared intent to commit murder, even though  only Ram Lochan had physically inflicted the fatal injury. The Court emphasized that all  participants in a crime could be held equally responsible for the outcome if they acted with a  common purpose. 

Issue: 

1. Whether the accused individuals had the commonplace goal to homicide the deceased.:  The number one query was whether or not Rishidev Pandey and his accomplices shared a  common purpose to commit homicide. Section 34 of the IPC states that when a criminal  act is done through several men and women in furtherance of a not unusual purpose,  anyone is liable for the act as though he had achieved it himself. The Court needed to  decide if the moves of Rishidev and his brother Ram Lochan indicated a premeditated  plan to kill the victim, Sheomurat. 
2. Whether the 2 accused who were present alongside Ram Lochan, also are chargeable for  committing murder.: The Court needed to confirm if the presence of Rishidev and 

Banslochan at the scene of the crime, along with Ram Lochan’s armed reputation,  constituted joint legal responsibility for the murder devoted by means of Ram Lochan.  The defense argued that Rishidev ought to not be held responsible because he did now  not inflict the fatal injury, even as the prosecution maintained that everyone 3 accused  have been similarly culpable under the doctrine of common intention.  

3. Evidence of Participation: The Court examined the proof offered, which included  eyewitness accounts of the incident. The testimony indicated that Rishidev turned into  gift with a ‘lathi’ at the same time as Ram Lochan introduced the deadly blow with a  ‘gandasa’. The prosecution argued that the mere presence of Rishidev and his movements  for the duration of the crime had been enough to infer a shared intent to kill.  

Arguments Advanced 

Arguments by appellant: Arguments Advanced by the Appellant 

1. Non-Participation within the Fatal Act: Rishidev’s primary argument became that he did  not for my part inflict the deadly blow that killed the victim, Sheomurat. He contended  that his handiest brother, Ram Lochan, was responsible for the homicide, which changed  into installed with the aid of the medical evidence indicating that the deadly injury turned  into because of a ‘gandasa’ wielded by using Ram Lochan. Rishidev argued that his mere  presence at the scene should no longer be construed as participation in the crime.  
2. Absence of Common Intention: The appellant argued that there was no hooked up not  unusual goal most of the accused to devote murder. He maintained that the prosecution  did not demonstrate that there was a prior settlement or shared purpose to kill Sheomurat.  Rishidev contended that the incident may also have come about spontaneously, with no premeditated plan to dedicate murder.  
3. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony: Rishidev’s defense challenged the reliability of the  eyewitnesses who testified in opposition to him. The protection argued that the debts  furnished by the witnesses have been inconsistent and lacked credibility, hence failing to  establish a clean narrative of shared intent for a few of the accused.  
4. Legal Interpretation of Common Intention: The appellant’s counsel argued in opposition  to the application of Section 34 of the IPC, which relates to common aim. Rishidev’s  protection claimed that the prosecution did not accurately prove that he had a  commonplace goal with Ram Lochan and Banslochan to commit homicide. They argued 

that an unusual aim requires a previous assembly of minds, which was now not obvious  in this case.  

5. Individual Liability: Rishidev’s defense emphasized that each accused should be judged  based on their individual actions rather than being collectively liable for the actions of  one individual. The argument was that since Rishidev did not commit the act of murder,  he should not be held liable under the principle of joint liability. 

Arguments by respondent: 

1. Establishment of Common Intention: The respondent argued that there has been clear  evidence of a common goal for many of the accused. Despite Rishidev now not turning in  the deadly blow, his presence on the scene, alongside along with his brother Ram  Lochan, who was armed with a ‘gandasa’, indicated a shared rationale to dedicate  homicide. The prosecution maintained that the moves of all 3 accused have been  coordinated and aimed at executing the murderer.  
2. Joint Liability Under Section 34: The respondent emphasized that Section 34 of the IPC  holds all contributors in a criminal offense similarly chargeable for the moves taken in  furtherance of a commonplace goal. The prosecution argued that on the grounds that Ram  Lochan inflicted the fatal blow, all 3 accused, together with Rishidev, have been  accountable for murder as they acted together with a not unusual motive.  
3. Eyewitness Testimony: The respondent depended on the testimony of eyewitnesses who  located the events main to the homicide. The witnesses confirmed that Rishidev become  present on the scene and that each he and Ram Lochan fled together after the assault.  This corroborated the prosecution’s declaration that Rishidev became complicit within the  crime. 
4. Nature of the Attack: The respondent mentioned the brutal nature of the attack, arguing  that it validated a premeditated rationale to kill. The truth that Ram Lochan turned into  armed and the manner in which the assault became finished suggested that the accused  had deliberate the homicide, in addition helping the argument for common purpose. 
5. Rejection of Defense Arguments: The respondent countered the appellant’s claims  concerning the dearth of premeditation and the credibility of eyewitnesses. They argued  that the proof supplied turned into sufficient to establish the guilt of Rishidev and that the  defense did not provide compelling reasons to doubt the prosecution’s case. 
6. Implication of Presence: The respondent argued that mere presence at the scene of a  crime, especially when armed, implicates an individual in the crime. They maintained  that Rishidev’s presence with a ‘lathi’ and his actions during the incident were enough to  infer his involvement and shared intent to commit murder. 

Judgement 

In the case of Rishidev Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 331, the Supreme Court of India  upheld the conviction of Rishidev Pandey and his brother Ram Lochan for the homicide of  Sheomurat, maintaining their death sentences. The Court dominated that although Ram Lochan  inflicted the deadly blow, the proof demonstrated a clear commonplace goal among the accused  to commit homicide, as both were gift at the scene and acted in live performance. The Court  emphasized the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which holds  individuals at the same time accountable for acts executed in furtherance of a common purpose.  It clarified that commonplace aim may want to expand spontaneously for the duration of the  commission of a crime, and the collective movements of the accused indicated a premeditated  motive to kill. The Supreme Court brushed off the appellant’s arguments regarding his lack of  direct involvement and the absence of premeditation, reinforcing the precept that each person involved in a criminal offense can be held equally culpable for its results. This judgment serves  as an extensive precedent in Indian crook law regarding the translation of common purpose and  joint liability.  

Conclusion 

The judgment in Rishidev Pandey v. State of U.P. Serves as a landmark case in Indian crook  law, clarifying the criminal interpretations of not unusual goal and joint liability. It mounted that  presence and participation in against the law, coupled with a shared cause, can lead to collective  obligation for the movements taken at some stage in the commission of the crime.