S. 34 IPC | Common Intention Doesn't Mean Prior Agreement, It Can Be Formed Even A Minute Before The Incident: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified that for Section 34(common intention) of the Indian Penal Code to be applicable, there must be a common intention among all co-accused individuals, indicating a shared purpose and design. Notably, common intention doesn't necessitate explicit discussions or agreements among the co-accused; it is a psychological aspect that can arise just before or during the commission of the offense.The Court observed “For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. 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.” The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing an appeal against the Allahabad High Court judgment which affirmed the trial court's verdict convicting all the 4 accused individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in a murder case.The incident that took place on October 18, 1982, when Balram and his brother Ram Kishore were attacked. They encountered Virender armed with an iron rod (Rambha), along with Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh, who were wielding lathis. The assailants proceeded to attack Ram Kishore viciously with lathis and an iron rod which led to his death.Based on the FIR, a case was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with murder and common intention. The trial court found all four accused individuals guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court later affirmed the trial court's decision.Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.The question before the court was whether the appellant shared a common intention along with other co-accused to kill the deceased Ram Kishore?The Appellant relied on Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu v. the State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220, but the court found that the decision supported the prosecution's case. The evidence indicated that all accused individuals arrived armed, collectively assaulted the victim, and subsequently left the scene together.The Court dismissed the appellant's reliance on the decision in Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. the State of Punjab 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 19, emphasizing that mere common intention alone might not trigger Section 34 IPC. However, in this case, the evidence clearly showed the appellant actively participating in the assault, supporting the conclusion that he shared a common intention to cause harm.Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal.Case title: Ram Naresh v. State of UPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

S. 34 IPC | Common Intention Doesn't Mean Prior Agreement, It Can Be Formed Even A Minute Before The Incident: Supreme Court

Suraj Parmar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S. 34 IPC | Common Intention Doesn't Mean Prior Agreement, It Can Be Formed Even A Minute Before The Incident: Supreme Court

Suraj Parmar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers