Barendra Kumar Gosh v. King Emperor
Somya Rajawat
Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior, M.P.
This Case Commentary is written by Somya Rajawat, a Law Graduate of Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior, M.P.
Case No- AIR 1925 Cal 545
Date of judgment- 08.10.1923
Court- Calcutta High Court
Petitioner- Barendra Kumar Ghose
Respondent- King-Emperor
Bench- justice Atkinson, justice Sumner, justice Edge.
Introduction-
This case is a landmark case and is known as the Postmaster case. This case deals with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case revolves around the term “common intention,” which means the preparation of the same mind. In this case, the accused did nothing but have the same intention for the commission of the crime. This case clarifies the term "common intention" very broadly because it states that the preparation of the same mind for the commission of an offense is liable equally for the same offence.
Facts of the case: -
· In August 1923, Barendra Kumar Ghose and his partner decided to go to the post office to commit an offense, where Barendra Kumar Ghose stood outside the post office and the remaining three partners went inside the post office to commit the offense.
· When all three partners entered the post office, the postmaster named Amrit Lal was counting money. At that time, they pointed a gun at the postmaster and demanded money.
· Amrit Lal Rao denied giving them the money, but when he refused, they shot him and tried to run away.
· After this incident, Barendra Kumar Ghose also fired a gun and tried to escape from the place.
· At the same time, when Barendra Kumar Ghose was trying to flee, the assistant of the post office caught him and then sent him to the police station.
· When he arrived at the police station, charges were brought against him.
Issues raised in the case: -
1. Does the appellant can be convicted under section 302 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. Is the person liable for the same offence as others?
3. Whether a physical appearance is required for the commitment of offense?
4. Whether he was liable for the murder or not?
Contentions of the case: -
Arguments in Favor of the Appellant: -
1. The appellant stated that he was just waiting outside the post office, he was not aware of that what was happening inside the post office.
2. The appellant also made the point that he was only standing outside to guard them.
3. It was also stated by the appellant that he was just providing them an information about the outside and he was not aware of the happening of the incident.
4. The appellant also stated the point that he had not fired the postmaster so he is not liable for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. The appellant also mentioned the point that he was standing outside the post office and he had no intention of killing the postmaster.
Arguments in Favor of Prosecution: -
1. The prosecution stated that the three men visited inside the post office and only one man was outside the post office.
2. The man who was standing outside did not fire while having the weapon.
Essential ingredients under this case: -
1. There must be some criminal acts.
2. A criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention.
3. There must be a pre-arranged plan between the parties that makes us individually liable for the offence.
4. Physical presence at the time of commission is required but not necessary in all cases.
5. Pre-arranged plan is necessary.
The above-mentioned points are essential to state furtherance of common intention.
Judgement of the case: -
In this case, it was held that the appellant was convicted under section 302 concerning section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was also clarified that the appellant did not commit murder, but he was abetting the offence. It was also stated that there was a meeting of minds, which is an essential element under common intention. Thus, the appellant was convicted in this case.
Conclusion: -
This whole case revolves around the common intention, which means the parties should have a meeting of minds before committing any offence. Through this case, it was clarified that committing a crime does not mean committing it by the individual; it also means that abetting or assisting in any offence also makes one liable for the offence.
Reference: -
· https://indiankanoon.org/doc/263845/
· https://indiankanoon.org/doc/979031/
· https://www.scribd.com/document/480309465/Barendra-Kumar-Ghosh-case-analysis
· https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=503291400000