Keywords – Section 34 IPC, Common intention, prior conspiracy or premeditated mind.
In this case apex court interpreted that in Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design.
Facts of the case
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Balram on 18.10.1982 at Ramnagar Police Station, Varanasi. Balram reported that while he and his brother Ram Kishore were heading to attend to nature’s call at Babulal’s Dhaba around 5:30 a.m. on the same day, they encountered Virender carrying an iron rod , along with Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh armed with lathis. These four individuals emerged from the Dhaba and threatened to kill Ram Kishore. Despite Balram and Ram Kishore’s calls for help, the four men surrounded Ram Kishore and brutally attacked him. As a result, Ram Kishore collapsed and eventually died due to the injuries he sustained.
On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case under Section 302 and 34 IPC was registered and was investigated upon. In the light of the evidence
including the eyewitnesses, the trial court held all the four accused guilty and convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC which was affirmed by the High Court.
But the appellant’s counsel argued that both the trial court and the High Court did not adequately evaluate the evidence regarding the appellant’s involvement in having a “common intention,” hence suggesting that Section 34 IPC should not be applied to convict the appellant. Hence filed petition to Supreme Court regarding that.
Apex court stand
The Court rejected the argument that there was no evidence to prove the appellant’s common intention in a case. They ruled that because the accused individuals arrived together and collectively inflicted fatal injuries on the victim using their weapons, their joint actions demonstrated a shared intent, making them all accountable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of the deceased.
Based on the evidence presented and the conclusions of both the trial court and the High Court, the argument stating that the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 34 IPC lacks merit and cannot be upheld. Consequently, the appeal, lacking in merit, has been dismissed.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and justice Pankaj Mithal presided over this case. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3577 OF 2023
Reference – official website of Supreme Court
Written by Samruddhi Kulkarni from ILS Law College pune (BA.LL.B) semester 1
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments