Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab - Case Analysis

Introduction of Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab

The case of Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab, 1955, is a landmark decision in Criminal Law providing significant insights into the application of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court in this case addressed crucial issues related to criminal liability, particularly focusing on how Section 149 broad scope contrasts with Section 34 requirement of common intention. The decision also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the need to frame specific charges for substantive offences to ensure clarity and justice.

Historical Context and Facts of Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab

In the case at hand, Sadhu Ram was attacked and killed at the shop of Vas Dev. The Appellant, who was present at the scene with a Takwa along with his companions was accused of the offence. 

Post-Mortem Report

The post-mortem examination revealed that Sadhu Ram had multiple injuries inflicted by a heavy, sharp-edged weapon, potentially a Takwa.

Charges and Conviction

The Appellant and his companions were charged under Section 148, Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge observed that there was insufficient evidence for the charges of rioting under Section 149 but found the Appellant guilty under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Thus, the Judge acquitted three of the accused.

Appeal in the High Court

An appeal was filed in the High Court against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder but altered the conviction of the other accused to Section 323 IPC instead of murder. The Appellant was sentenced to death.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

The Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.

Issue addressed in Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether the Appellant could legally be convicted of murder and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC when he was not charged with that offence? 
• Whether Section 149 of IPC creates a specific offence?

Legal Provisions involved in Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 34 of the IPC states that 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 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 149 of the Code provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

According to Section 302 of the IPC, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 323 of the IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 233 of the Code states that-

1. Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.
2. If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.
3. If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

Section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 236 of the Code deals with previous convictions. It provides that in a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 211, and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after he has convicted the said accused under Section 229 or Section 235, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon-

Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under Section 229 or Section 235.

Judgment and Impact of Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab

The Supreme Court in this case examined Section 149 of the IPC. The Court highlighted that Section 149 of IPC holds a member of an unlawful assembly liable for the offence committed by another member of the same assembly, even if the individual had no intention to commit that specific offence or did not actively participate in the act. The main principle under Section 149 is that the presence in an unlawful assembly can lead to liability for the acts of others, provided the assembly’s unlawful nature is established.

The Court also highlighted that a charge of rioting under Section 149 must be proved before holding any individual liable for the offences committed by others in the assembly. Without a charge of rioting, an individual cannot be convicted of an offence not personally committed by him.

The Court also observed that Section 34 of the IPC focuses on common intention to commit an offence. Under this section, several individuals acting in furtherance of a common intention can each be held liable for the offence as if they had individually committed it. This requires a shared intention to commit the offence and each participant’s actions are seen as part of the collective intent.

On the other hand, Section 149 does not consider common intention. It attributes the actions of one member of an unlawful assembly to all members irrespective of their individual intentions or participation in the specific act. This distinction between object and intention is crucial, while the object of the assembly might be common, the intentions of its members can differ. The Court referred to several key cases to clarify the application of Sections 149 and 34-

Barendra Kumar Ghose vs. Emperor (1925) 

Lord Sumner emphasised the unity of criminal behaviour necessary for liability under Section 34, and distinguished it from Section 149. He also stated that each distinct offence must be separately charged and tried.

Queen vs. Sabid Ali (1873)

This case reinforced the difference between object and intention, noting that while members of an unlawful assembly may share a common object, their intentions may differ.

Conclusion

The case of Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab (1955) represents a crucial development in the interpretation of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision highlights that common intention required under Section 34 differs fundamentally from a common objective as covered by Section 149. Section 34 mandates a shared intent among individuals to commit a crime, while Section 149 holds all members of an unlawful assembly liable for crimes committed by any member of that assembly, regardless of individual intent. The analysis of the Court in this case underscores the broader liability imposed by Section 149 compared to the more specific liability under Section 34.