SC opines: ‘Common intention’ is a psychological fact that can be formed minutes before the occurrence of crime, Read Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by an appellant challenging the trial court and High Court judgments, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while discussing the applicability of Section 34 IPC.

Brief Facts:

The appellant had challenged the judgment of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for his involvement in the killing of Ram Kishore. The appeal specifically focused on the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC, questioning whether the appellant shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit the murder.

The appellant and the other accused, armed with weapons, surrounded Ram Kishore and fatally assaulted him, resulting in his death. An FIR filed by an eyewitness detailed the sequence of events, attributing the assault to the collective actions of the accused.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant's contention was centered on the argument that there was a lack of evidence supporting the finding of "common intention," as neither the trial court nor the High Court adequately considered the issue. The appellant asserted that Section 34 IPC could not be applied to convict him. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary to have a premeditated mind or prior conspiracy.

Observations of the Court:

The Supreme Court stated that Section 34 IPC holds individuals jointly liable for a criminal act if done with a common intention. The Court clarified that this common intention need not involve prior conspiracy or premeditation and can be formed during the occurrence of the crime. The Court referred to the precedent established in Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka^[1], to enunciate the principle that common intention is a psychological fact, and its existence can be inferred from various factors, such as the manner of the attack, the weapons used, and the conduct of the perpetrators.

The Court held that “common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.”

After examining the evidence and the lower courts' findings, the Court concluded that there was sufficient proof of common intention among the accused. The appellant, armed and actively participating in the assault along with others, was deemed liable under Section 34 IPC.

The decision of the Court:

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's submission lacked merit and could not be sustained based on the evidence and legal principles presented in the case.

Case Title: Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P.