Appellate Court Cannot Dilute Liability Of Convict U/S 34 IPC At Interlocutory Stage Due To Absence Of Overt Act: Supreme Court
Under Section 389 CrPC, courts must focus on the gravity of the conviction, not selectively reappreciate the convict’s specific role during the crime.
The Supreme Court has held that when a conviction is based on constructive liability, an appellate court cannot suspend a life sentence by attributing a lesser role to a convict, as all participants remain equally liable for acts done in furtherance of a common intention. By setting aside the suspension of sentence, the Court asserted that ‘palpable infirmity’ in the conviction must be apparent on the face of the record to warrant such relief, and a mere long period of incarceration or a perceived "limited role" is insufficient to override a finding of murder.
The Court noted that once a trial court records a finding of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the lack of a "fatal shot" or a specific violent act by one individual does not diminish their legal guilt. The judgment highlights that under Section 389 CrPC, the focus must remain on the gravity of the judicial determination already made, rather than a selective reappreciation of the convict's specific physical actions during the crime.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan noting that the High Court had erred by embarking on a "premature reappreciation of evidence" when it distinguished between the shooter and those who merely caught hold of the deceased, observed, “…The doctrine of constructive liability under Section 34 IPC is well settled; where an offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each participant is equally liable for the act done in execution thereof. The absence of a specific overt act cannot, at this stage, dilute the culpability of the convict, particularly in the face of a finding of common intention”.
Senior Advocate Saket Singh appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Ashwani Kumar Singh appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, in a 2016 incident, the deceased, Ramashankar Pandey, was intercepted at a village market in Buxar. The prosecution alleged that while two accused persons, including the respondents, restrained the deceased, a third individual fired a fatal gunshot to his head. The motive was attributed to longstanding political rivalry.
On August 18, 2018, the trial court convicted the respondents under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. On November 22, 2024, the Patna High Court suspended the sentence of Respondent No. 2, noting that the fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused and citing his period of custody. The informant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Now, the Court held that the High Court failed to exercise the circumspection and restraint required under Section 389 CrPC. The Bench observed that the presumption of innocence is displaced upon conviction, and the High Court’s focus on the "absence of a specific overt act" was "wholly misconceived" given the finding of common intention.
“At the outset, it must be emphasised that the parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at the stage of pre-trial bail. Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence stands displaced by a judicial determination of guilt, and the appellate court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC with due circumspection and restraint”, the Court observed.
The Court further highlighted the respondent's criminal antecedents and alleged threats to the appellant as significant factors that the High Court overlooked.
While citing Om Prakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another (2023) 6 SCC 123, the Bench noted, “…It is further evident that the High Court has embarked upon a selective consideration of certain aspects of the prosecution case, which in substance 19 amounts to a premature reappreciation of evidence. Such an approach is directly contrary to the law laid down by this Court…”.
“A perusal of the record indicates that the prosecution case is founded on ocular evidence, which has been duly appreciated and accepted by the trial Court. Without considering the same in a proper perspective, the High Court erred in granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 and released him on bail”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting suspension of sentence. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the respondents were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.
Cause Title: Dhan Jee Pandey v. The State of Bihar & Another [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 349]
Appearances:
Appellant: Saket Singh, Sr. Adv., Sarvshree, AOR, Somyashree, Advocates.
Respondents: Samir Ali Khan, AOR, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Manu Arya, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv., Ashish Anshuman, Chandan Malav, Astha Singh, AOR, Advocates.