In the recent judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court delved deep into the crux of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), delineating the parameters of “common intention” amidst co-accused individuals. It underscored that invoking Section 34 hinges upon the existence of a shared purpose and design among all co-accused persons. Crucially, the court emphasized that establishing a common intention doesn’t mandatorily necessitate explicit discussions or pre-planned agreements among the involved parties. Instead, it highlighted this facet as a psychological aspect, integral to invoking Section 34, which could emerge right before or even during the commission of an offense.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, presided over an appeal challenging a verdict from the Allahabad High Court. The judgement upheld the trial court’s decision, convicting four accused individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC concerning a murder case stemming from an incident on October 18, 1982.
The crux of the incident revolved around the fatal attack on Ram Kishore by assailants armed with deadly weapons, including an iron rod and lathis. The prosecution pressed charges under Section 302/34 IPC, encompassing murder and common intention, based on the First Information Report (FIR). Both the trial court and the High Court found all four accused individuals guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the principle of joint liability when multiple individuals commit a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention. It establishes that when a criminal act is committed by several persons with a shared intention, each of those individuals is held equally liable for the act as if it were done by each person alone. This section doesn’t demand explicit agreements or discussions among co-accused; instead, it focuses on a collective understanding or consensus to commit a particular offense. Section 34 emphasizes the concept of “common intention,” which refers to a pre-arranged plan or a shared understanding between two or more individuals to execute a criminal act. It is crucial to demonstrate this shared intention to establish liability among all involved individuals, attributing collective culpability to those participating in the offense.
Section 302 of the IPC deals with the offense of murder and outlines the legal provisions for punishing individuals involved in committing murder. It defines murder as the intentional act of causing the death of another human being. Section 302 lays down stringent punishment, including life imprisonment or the death penalty, for individuals found guilty of committing murder. For a conviction under Section 302, the prosecution must establish that the accused person had the intention to cause the death of the victim. The provision also considers certain exceptions such as cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and situations where the offense is committed under grave and sudden provocation. Overall, Section 302 serves as a pivotal provision in the IPC concerning the severe punishment for the crime of murder and the evidential requirements necessary for establishing guilt in such cases.
The appellant contested this ruling by approaching the Supreme Court, raising a pivotal query: Did the appellant share a common intention with the other co-accused to commit the murder of Ram Kishore?
The appellant sought support for their argument, citing Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu v. the State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220. However, the Court deemed this reference as aligned with the prosecution’s case. The evidence presented portrayed a scenario of collective armed arrival, joint assault on the victim, and the subsequent exit of all accused together from the crime scene.
In contrast, the appellant’s reliance on the decision in Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. the State of Punjab 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 19 was dismissed by the Court. The judgment underscored that mere common intention might not suffice to invoke Section 34 IPC. Nevertheless, the presented evidence in this specific case showcased the appellant’s active involvement in the assault, signifying a shared intent to cause harm.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, marking a monumental judgment that illuminates the intricate application of Section 34 IPC. It elucidates the fine balance between collective responsibility and individual culpability among co-accused individuals in criminal offenses.
This ruling resonates as a benchmark precedent, providing invaluable legal clarity on the nuanced interpretation of “common intention.” It underscores the imperative for courts to meticulously scrutinize evidence related to collective involvement and shared intent among co-accused individuals in criminal cases.