In Criminal Appeal No. 3577 of 2023 -SC- Top Court rules ‘Common Intention’ can be formed during the crime; prior conspiracy or premeditated mind not required
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [01-12-2023]

Read Order: Ram Naresh V. State of U.P.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 6, 2023: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an individual for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The Apex Court held that the appellant had a common intention with the other co-accused to kill the deceased.

The factual background of the case was that an FIR was filed by Balram at Police Station Ramnagar, alleging that Virender, Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh assaulted and ultimately killed Ram Kishore. The incident occurred when Balram and Ram Kishore were confronted by the four accused at Babulal’s Dhaba. Despite shouting for help, the accused attacked Ram Kishore with lathis and an iron rod, leading to his demise. Subsequently, a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigated, culminating in the trial court's finding all four accused guilty. They were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, a decision that was later affirmed by the Allahabad High Court.

The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the reading of Section 34 of the IPC revealed that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention, each person is liable for that act as if it had been done by them alone. It was noted that where the participation of the accused in a crime was proven, and the common intention was also established, Section 34 IPC came into play. It was emphasized that to attract Section 34 IPC, there was no requirement for a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention could be formed even in the course of the incident, i.e., during the occurrence of the crime.

The bench further clarified that for Section 34 IPC to apply, there should be a common intention among all the co-accused persons, indicating a community of purpose and common design. It was clarified that common intention did not necessitate the co-accused persons to engage in any discussion or agreement to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. The bench emphasized that common intention is a psychological fact and can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incident or even during its occurrence.

The bench held that in the said case, the appellant had been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the offence of killing the deceased. This decision was based on the fact that they all had come armed, assaulted the deceased together, and subsequently left the place of occurrence together.

Thus, in light of the evidence on record and the conclusions reached by both the trial court and the High Court, the Court held that the argument that the appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC was held to be devoid of merit.

Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed.