Section 34 IPC - 'Common Intention' Can Be Formed At The Spur Of The Moment And During The Occurrence Itself : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that 'common intention' for the purpose of Section 34 IPC can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. 

For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.

In this case, the prosecution case against Gurbachan Singh and others was that they came armed with 'lathi', 'toka', axe, and 'gandasi' respectively, and had beaten and inflicted injuries on one Teja Singh, who died on the spot. The Trial Court convicted them for murder under Section 302 IPC. The High court partly allowed the appeal filed by Gurbachan Singh on the ground that common intention could not be inferred from his conduct, as he was only armed with 'lathi' and had struck only on the feet of Teja Singh.

In appeal, the Apex court disagreed with this finding of the High Court and observed that the common intention to inflict injuries and cause the death of Teja Singh, can be gathered from the conduct and action of Gurbachan Singh. In this context, it observed:

"Section 34 of the IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention."

Reappreciating the evidence on record, the court observed that, all of the accused, including Gurbachan Singh, would be responsible for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, irrespective of the part played by them. Therefore, it allowed the appeal and restored conviction of Gurbachan Singh under Section 302 IPC.

Case details

State of Rajasthan vs Gurbachan Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028 | CrA 2201 OF 2011  | 7 Dec 2022 | Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia

For Appellant(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Anantha Narayana M.g., AOR Mr. Vinayaka Pandit, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gulia, Adv. Mr. Sushant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Relan, Adv. Mr. M.L. Gopalakrishna, Adv. Mr. Venkata Krishna Kunduru, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. 

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 34 - 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 among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention."

Click here to Read/Download Judgment