Some landmark judgements on section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e., acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, are the following
In Mahboob Shah Vs Emperor 72 I.A. 148 (P.C.) on August 25, 1943, at sunrise, Allah Dad, the deceased, with a few others left their village Khanda Kel by boat for cutting reeds growing on the banks of the Indus river. When they had travelled for about a mile downstream, they saw Mohammad Shah, father of Wali Shah bathing on the bank of the river.
On being told that they were going to collect reeds, he warned them against collecting reeds from land belonging: to him. Ignoring his warning they collected about sixteen bundles of reeds, and then started for the return journey. While the boat was being pulled upstream by means of a rope Ghulam Quasim Shah, nephew of Mohammad Hussain Shah who was standing on the bank of the river asked Ahah Dad to give him the reeds that had been collected from his uncle's lanl. But he refused.
Quasim Shah then caught the rope and tried to snatch it away. He then pushed Allah Dad and gave a blow to Allah Dad with a small stick but it was warded off on the rope. Allah Dad then picked up the Iari ( Lari is a bamboo pole for propelling the boat, about ten feet long and six inches thick.) from the boat and struck Quasim Shah. Quasim Shah then shouted out for help and Wali Shah and Mahbub Shah came up.
They had guns in their hands. When Allah Dad and Hamidullah tried to run away, Wali Shah and Mahbub Shah came in front of them and Wali Shah fired at Allah Dad who fell down dead and Mahbub Shah fired at Hamidullah, causing injuries to him.
Mahboob Shah was sentenced by the trial court to seven years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder. But on appeal the Lahore High Court sentenced him to death under section 302 read with section 34 of the indInd Penal Code for committing murder of Allahdad. Mahboob Shah appealed to the Privy Council and conviction for murder was set aside.
In the present case, in the opinion of their Lordships, " Evidence falls far short of showing that the Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah ever entered into a pre-meditated concert to bring about the murder of Allah Dad in carrying out their intention of rescuing Quasim Shah. But Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah had the same intention, viz, the intention to rescue Quasim if need, be by using the guns, and that in carrying out this intention the appellant picked out Hamidullah for dealing with him and Wali Shah, the deceased, and there is no evidence of common intention to commit the criminal act complained against, in furtherance of such intention. The inference of common intention within the meaning of the term in section 34 should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case. "
Also read - 9 Major Differences Between Common Intention And Common Object.
Ingredients And Principles Of Section 34 Of The Indian Penal Code.
In Barendra Kumar Ghosh Vs Emperor 52 I.A. 40. On August 3, 1923, the Sub-Fostmaster at Sankaritolla Post Office was counting money at his table in the back room, when several men appeared at the door which leads into the room from a courtyard, and, when just inside the door, called on him to give up the money. Almost immediately afterwards they fired pistols at him. The sub-postmaster died almost at once. Without taking any money the assailants fled, separating as they ran.
One man, Barendra Kumar Ghosh though he tired his pistol several times, was pursued by a post office assistant and others with commendable tenacity and courage, and eventually was secured just after he had thrown it away. The pistol was at once picked up and was produced at the trial. Hence Barendra Kumar Ghosh was prosecuted and tried for committing murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
He contended that he was standing outside and had not fired at the sub- postmaster and that he was compelled to join others for robbery and had no intention to kill the deceased.
But the Privy Council agreed with the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the appeal. While holding the appeallant liable for murder the following principles were laid down by the Privy Council -
1. Even if the appeallant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in other things " they also serve who only stands and wait. "
2. Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for "that act" in the latter part of the section must the whole action covered by a "criminal act" in the first part, because they refer to it.
3. A " criminal act " means the unity of criminal behavior which results in something for which an individual would be punishable, if it were all done by himself alone, in a criminal offence.
In Kripal Singh Vs State of U.P., AIR 1954 S.C. 706 their Lordships of the Supreme Court refused to infer common intention to murder. In this case three appellants namely Bhopal, Sheoraj and Kripal were working the well that morning. When they saw Man Singh and Sher Singh going past the well they asked them where they were going. On being told that they were going to harvest Jiraj's sugarcane field they abused them and told them not to go there but to work for them. Man Singh and Sher Singh did not listen to them and walked on.
When they had gone 30-40 paces, the three appellants rushed at them and began to beat them with the handles of spears which were in the hands of Bhopal and Kripal and with a lathi which was in Sheoraj's hand. Jiraj arrived at the spot and asked the appellants why they were beating his labourers and stopped them from beating them. Sheoraj hit him on the legs with his lathi and he fell down. Kripal stabbed him with his spear near the ear. Bhopal then stabbed him with his spear on the left jaw, put his legs on his chest and extracted the spear blade from his jaw. Just as the blade came off, Jiraj died".
The High Court upheld the conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder. The case went in appeal to the Supreme Court.
Their Lordships of Supreme Court observed : " Having regard to the sequence of assaults, the parts of the body on which the assaults of Kripal and Sheoraj were aimed and actual results of these assaults as above indicated, it is difficult to attribute to either of them any intention to kill the deceased. Nor it is reasonable to suppose that on the spur of the moment the common intention of the appeallants which was at first merely to beat the two labourers developed suddenly into a common intention to kill Jairaj when he intervened in the altercation."
" We are, therefore unable to uphold the view taken by the High Court that any common intention to kill the deceased can be attributed to the three appellants. Therefore the only common intention that can be attributed to all the three appellants, in so far as assault on Jairaj is concerned, is the common intention to beat Jairaj also with the weapons in their hands which were likely to produce grievous injuries. "
A persual of the above cases would show that to invoke section 34, prior concert or a pre-arranged plan has to be established. Though common intention has to be inferred from the act or conduct of the accused and other relevant circumstances, it is not necessary that any overt act must have been done by any particular accused. It would be enough if the criminal act has been done by one of the accused in furtherance of the common intention. The common intention must be to commit the particular crime although the actual crime may be committed by any one sharing the common intention and then all others can be held guilty of the crime.
References -
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal- THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-33rd Edition
Criminal Law: Cases and Materials - Sixth Edition - K.D.Gaur
Prof. S.N.Misra - INDIAN PENAL CODE- 15th Edition
Like this post? Want more posts like this? Suggest our next post via comments below…
