The Supreme Court stated the offense under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that of the High Court affirming the same is the subject-matter of examination in this appeal. The notice on this appeal was issued to the respondent-State of whether the appellant shared common intention along with other co- accused to kill the deceased Ram Kishore. confined to the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC, he saw Virender armed with iron rod, Rajaram, Jogendra and Ram Naresh holding lathis in their hands. All these four persons came out of the Dhaba and shouted to kill Ram. All four persons gheraoed Ram Kishore and gave brutal blows to him from lathis and iron rod. As a consequence, Ram Kishore fell down, 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. the court has not considered any evidence to record finding with regard Section 34 IPC cannot be applied so as to convict him. submitted that even the High Court has not discussed the evidence reading of Section 34 of the IPC the and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC would come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that In the case at hand, it is clearly stated in the FIR and also categorically stated by Balram that Rajaram, Ram Naresh and Jogendra had lathis in their hands and Virender had iron rod in his Rajaram by shouting instigated all of them to kill Ram. The accused persons having gheraoed Ram Kishore assaulted him with lathis and iron rod. and Ram Naresh armed with lathis and Virender armed with iron rod assaulted Ram Kishore to death.. All the accused persons, on the instigation of Rajaram simultaneously attacked the deceased Ram Kishore and thereafter. Thus, according to the findings of the trial court all the four accused persons had come to the place of occurrence together armed with weapons, assaulted the deceased Ram Kishore. The High Court while dealing with the submission that there was no material available on record to establish common intention on part of the appellant-Ram Naresh and hence the appellant is not liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC held that the argument has no substance inasmuch as the accused persons had the collective action of all the accused persons indicated sharing of common intention.
Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which common design or prearranged plan. not mean that co-perpetrators should have engaged in any criminal act is performed. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be the co participants or perpetrators at the time and after the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack, etc. whether or
not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are we must remember that Section 34 IPC comes have not committed the principal or main act, which is or perpetrator. Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other attract Section 34 IPC unless the present accused has done some act large on record as per the evidence that the appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC is of merit and cannot be sustained.
Section 302 : Punishment for Murder
Section 34 IPC : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention Referred Judgements
Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs. State of Punjab
Case Name : Ram Naresh vs State of U.P
By : Kavya Jaggi
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.
