Rawalpenta Venkalu And Ors v. State of Hyderabad (1956) AIR 1956 SC 171

Introduction

This is an important case on the point of intention that is required for committing the offence of murder.

Facts

• On the night of 18^th and 19^th February 1953, Rawalpenta Venkalu and Bodla Ram Narsiah, along with three others, planned to murder Md. Moinuddin.
• They set fire to the hut where he was sleeping, locking the door from the outside.
• Additionally, they attacked Md. Moinuddin's employees who tried to help him, particularly Kasim Khan, who was severely beaten.
• The appellants then set fire to the cottage and used force to keep Md. Moinuddin's employees away.
• They even attacked villagers with sticks to prevent them from rescuing the victim.
• The incident was reported when Md. Moinuddin's cousin, Yousuf Ali, lodged a complaint.
• They made confession before musif magistrate but retracted from their words before Session Judge.
• After examining the evidence, the Sessions judge sentenced both appellants to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Hyderabad High Court's division bench upheld this decision, stating that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The appellants appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved

• Whether the confessions of the appellants were corroborated?
• Whether mens rea was present for committing the act?
• Whether they acted deliberately in furtherance of their common intention?

Observations

• The SC noted that the accused did not retract their confessions until they were examined by the Sessions Judge.
• The direct evidence against them was supported by ample oral testimony from individuals who arrived at the scene while the cottage was still ablaze.
• Neither of the appellants could identify any circumstances suggesting that their confessions had been coerced.
• The prosecution witnesses testified that the accused, with the clear intent to murder Moinuddin, locked the door from outside, trapping the victim in his burning cottage.
• When villagers tried to help, they were forcefully prevented by the accused.
• It is evident from the evidence that both appellants actively participated in setting fire to the cottage with the trapped man inside.
• The longstanding dispute between the deceased and the second appellant's family provided a motive for the crime.
• Each appellant, acting individually and in line with a common intention, contributed to the same outcome through their actions.
• Even though Section 34 of IPC was not explicitly mentioned with Section 302, the accused were aware that they were charged with murder due to their common intention to end Moinuddin's life.
• The omission of Section 34 in the charge was deemed academically significant and did not mislead the accused.
• There was clear evidence that both accused lit a matchstick to set fire to the cottage, making each of them individually liable for murder.
• Their subsequent actions, hindering attempts to rescue the victim, demonstrated their shared intention to achieve the same result.

Conclusion

• Ultimately, the SC upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and affirmed the death sentence for the appellants.

Note

• Section 34 of IPC - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
  • When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for Murder
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.