[Document subtitle]
[Document title]
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]
CASE ANALYSIS
Of
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor Co.
SUBJECT- LAW OF CRIMES- I
SESSION: - 2023-24
LL.B.(Hons.) Sem-1
Submitted to- Submitted by-
Dr. Kalindri Nishant Kumar
Section- D
FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW
LUCKNOW U.P
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, Nishant Kumar, owe a great appreciation to Dr.
Kalindri who has given me a chance to do case an
analysis on “Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. King
Emperor Co.”.
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who
helped me on this case.
I further extend my thanks to Library Staff who have
helped me in getting all those materials necessary for
the assigned Case.
Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. King Emperor Co. AIR 1925 PC
CASE CITATION: AIR 1952 Cal 545
BENCH: Atkinson, Summer, J. Edge
FACTS OF THE CASE
On August 3, 1923, the sub- postmaster a Sankaritolla post office was
counting money at his table in the back room, several men appeared at the
door which leads into the room from courtyard, and went inside the door,
called on him to give up the money. Almost immediately afterwards they
fired the pistols at him.
He was hit in two place, one in hand and near the armpit, and died
instantaneously. Without taking the money the assailants fled, separating as
they ran.
One man was held by the post assistants, this was the appellate. Others
accused fled from the scene.
The evidence with the jury pointed out to the presence of three accused at
the crime scene that fired at the post master, the accused was identified due
to the distinct clothes he wore.
According to the prosecutor he was one of the person that fired at the post
master, the accused denied his charge on the ground that he was standing
outside and had no direct involvement in the commission of crime of the
post master as he did not fire the shots.
Charges preferred were of murder under Section 302, voluntary causing hurt
under Section 394 and attempt to commit robbery.
To the first charge the accused pleaded not guilty. And to the second charge
he pleaded guilty of robbery.
ISSUES
1. Whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 302 r/w to
Section 34 or not?
2. Whether a person is liable for the acts of the others?
3. Whether physical presence is necessary on the scene of crime or not?
ARRGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF APPLELLANT
The appellant argued that he was the man standing outside the room
and he did not knew, what was going inside the room.
The appellant contended that he was only standing outside to guard
the post office and he did not have any intention to kill the post
master.
Also, the appellant did not fire to the post master so, he should not be
charged with the offence of murder under Section 302.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PROSECUTION
The Prosecution argued that the three men were just inside the room
and another was visible from the room through door standing close to
the others but outside on the doorstep in the courtyard. This man was
armed but did not fire.
JUDGEMENT
The Appellant was found guilty and was convicted under Section 302
r/w Section 34. Though he has not committed the murder but was
waiting for the assailants amounts to abetting the murder and they
were sharing common intention to kill the post master as they all were
carrying pistols. Moreover, it was pre- planned not incidental.
REASONING
Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by
several persons, if all are done in the furtherance of common
intention, each person is liable for result of them all, as if he had done
himself, for ‘that act’ in the latter part of the section must include the
whole action covered by a criminal act ‘in the first part because the
refer to it’. In other words, ‘criminal act’ means that unity of criminal
behavior which results in something for which an individual would
be responsible of it were all done by himself alone, that is, in a
criminal offence.
The Apex court has held that it is the essence of the section 34 that
the person should be present on the scene of the crime but the
physical presence does not amount to the actual presence of the
person in the actual room of the crime, he can stand, guard or be
ready to warn his companion about the imminent danger that may
prop up or may be plan an escape route for his companion. However,
there is an exception to this as well as in every case the participation
may not be physical presence as in offences of physical violence
where the presence at the scene of the crime may be necessary but in
the cases where offence consists of diverse acts which may be done at
different time and places the applicability of physical presence in not
a necessity.
