No Overt Act Of Assault Required To Establish Common Intention: SC [Read Judgment]

If common intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and circumstances of the case, there need not be an overt act or possession of weapon required to establish common intention, the bench observed.

The Supreme Court, in Rajkishore Purohit vs State of Madhya Pradesh, has observed that there need not be an overt act or possession of weapon to establish common intention, if common intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The accused were convicted by the trial court for their involvement in the murder of the president of the Congress Sewa Dal. The high court, in the appeal preferred by one of the convicts, acquitted him, on the reasoning that no overt act of assault was attributed to him, neither was he armed, much less gave any exhortation. This order was assailed before the apex court.

Events prior to the occurrence relevant to deduce existence of common intention

The bench, comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha, held that events prior to the occurrence, as also after, and during the occurrence are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. “Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible to read a person’s mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behaviour in the facts and circumstances of each case,” the court said.

Absence of overt act, exhortation, or possession of weapon not needed to have common intention

The court also observed in the facts of the case that the sequence of events and the manner in which the occurrence took place manifests a pre-concerted plan and a prior meeting of minds. “The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common intention,” the court said.

When can acquittal be reversed?

The bench also observed that in an appeal preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution, if it finds that the High Court has completely erred in appreciation of evidence and has applied the wrong principles to negate common intention and has based its conclusions on speculative reasoning, beyond the defence of the accused himself, justice will demand that the acquittal is reversed.