Criminal Law : Important Principles Explained

Criminal Law : Important Principles Explained 

The recent findings in Upen Deka v. State of Assam [2025] GCtR 1561 (Gauhati) are useful for practitioners dealing in criminal law. 

Principle1 : Generally in criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are bound to happen because there would be a considerable gap between the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before the Court. If these contradictions create a serious doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears to the Court that there is clear improvement in the testimony of the witnesses, it would not be safe to rely on such evidence. There is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses have to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. The same would be required only when the evidence of related eye witnesses are found to be incredible and not trustworthy. Minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, unless those contradictions goes to the root of the matter and proves fatal to the prosecution case.

Principle2 : Section 34 of IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others, if he has the “common intention” to commit the offence. The phrase “common intention” implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. 

Principle3 :  It is open to the Court to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness, provided the evidence of that witnesses reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. 

Principle4  :  Intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of the injuries caused. 

Principle5 :  Common intention is a state of mind and there can hardly be direct evidence of common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behavior in the facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and during the occurrence are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. There can be no straitjacket formula. The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common intention. 

Principle6 :  Common intention has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behavior, by looking into the events prior to the occurrence as also after the occurrence and the events during the occurrence.