Section 34 IPC: There must be participation by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention [Read the SC Order]

A bench of Justice Shantanagoudar and Justice Rastogi in a case titled Balbir Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Anr on 03.10.2019 has observed that the acts may be different in character but must be arising out of the same common intention in order to attract the provision of Section 34 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the four named accused including appellants herein and four other unnamed accused came in a group and attacked the motor vehicle of the deceased in which the injured eye-witnesses were also travelling. Thereafter, the named accused as well as the unnamed accused assaulted the deceased and PWs 1 and 3 namely, Balkar Singh and Jasbir Singh. Consequent upon such assault, Kamaljit Singh lost his life and PWs 1 and 3 suffered simple/grievous injuries. Having been convicted for murder, some accused persons finally approached the Supreme Coiurt.

Supreme Court observed and held as under:

"Though in our considered opinion, the Trial Court and the High Court are justified in committing Balbir Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC in view of the number of overt acts on the deceased attributed to him by the prosecution witnesses however, they are not justified in convicting Paramjit Singh, the appellant No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

However, insofar as appellant No.2, Paramjit Singh is concerned, it appears, he did not share common intention with others in the murder of the deceased.

A perusal of Section 34 IPC would clearly indicate that there must be two ingredients for convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 IPC, i.e. firstly, there must be a common intention and secondly, there must be participation by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention.

The acts may be different in character but must be arising out of the same common intention in order to attract the provision. It is well settled, insofar as common intention is concerned, it is a state of mind of accused which can be inferred objectively from his acts in the commission of the crime and also from prior and subsequent attendant circumstances.

Such evidence can only be inferred facts and proved circumstances. Therefore, to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence whether direct or circumstantial, that there was a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence, before a person can be vicariously convicted for the act of others.

In the matter on hand, the facts reveal that the first Appellant had grudge against the deceased inasmuch as he had killed the brother of the first Appellant herein.

The second Appellant (Paramjit Singh) is not related to the first Appellant. No motive was attached to 2nd Appellant. Be that as it may, on facts, we are of the opinion that Paramjit Singh has not shared the common intention or common object to commit the murder of the deceased.

The evidence on record clearly reveals that Appellant No. 2 had assaulted two injured witnesses. For such offence, he may have to be punished under Section 326 IPC inasmuch as such attack has led to grievous injuries".

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :