Not Necessary That Accused Must Be Actively Involved In Physical Activity Of Assault To Convict Him On The Ground Of Common Intention: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that an accused must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault to convict him on the ground of common intention.

A common intention to bring about a particular result may also develop on the spot as between a number of persons deducible from the facts and circumstances of a particular case, a three judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee observed.

The court was considering the appeal filed by three accused convicted in a murder case. One of the accused contended that he cannot be said to have shared any common intention with the other accused who are liable for their individual acts. Referring to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench observed:

"Common intention consists of several persons acting in unison to achieve a common purpose, though their roles may be different. The role may be active or passive is irrelevant, once common intention is established. There can hardly be any direct evidence of common intention. It is more a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of 10 a case based on the cumulative assessment of the nature of evidence available against the participants. The foundation for conviction on the basis of common intention is based on the principle of vicarious responsibility by which a person is held to be answerable for the acts of others with whom he shared the common intention. The presence of the mental element or the intention to commit the act if cogently established is sufficient for conviction, without actual participation in the assault. It is therefore not necessary that before a person is convicted on the ground of common intention, he must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault. If the nature of evidence displays a pre­arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan, common intention can be inferred. A common intention to bring about a particular result may also develop on the spot as between a number of persons deducible from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The coming together of the accused to the place of occurrence, some or all of whom may be armed, the manner of assault, the active or passive role played by the accused, are but only some of the materials for drawing inferences. (Para 13)  

The Court, took note of the facts of the case, noted that the accused waited along with the other two accused at the crime scene who were armed and when the deceased tried to flee, the accused also chased him. To our mind no further evidence is required with regard to existence of common intention to commit the offence in question, the bench observed while dismissing appeal.

Case name: SUBED ALI vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1401 OF 2012  

Coram: Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee 

Counsel: Advocate Gaurav Agrawal

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment