Common Intention Is A Psychological Fact; Can Be Formed A Minute Before Or During Occurrence Of Offence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that common intention, a crucial element for invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is a psychological fact and can be formed even a minute before the actual commission of the offence or during its occurrence.

The Court dismissed a Criminal Appeal which raised the issue was whether the Appellant had a shared intention with the other co-accused under Section 34 of the IPC to kill the deceased.

The Court noted that the Appellant was rightly convicted of murder by invoking Section 34 IPC, as their actions demonstrated a common intention to kill the deceased.

The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence”.

Advocate Bibek Tripathi appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Garvesh Kabra appeared for the Respondents.

One Balram and his brother Ram Kishore were walking towards Babulal's Dhaba when they were confronted by four men armed with lathis and an iron rod. The four men, the Appellant and co-accused, attacked Ram Kishore, causing him fatal injuries. The Trial Court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court also affirmed the conviction.

An Appeal was filed challenging the conviction of life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (IPC). The sole issue for consideration was whether the Appellant shared a common intention under Section 34 of the IPC with the other co-accused to kill the deceased.

The Court noted that Section 34 of the IPC holds that if multiple individuals commit a crime with a shared intention, each individual is responsible for the entire crime as if they had committed it alone. This means that if the accused's participation in the crime is established and the common intention is also proven, Section 34 IPC applies. A prior conspiracy or premeditated plan is not required for Section 34 IPC; the common intention can be formed during the crime.

“Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC would Page 4 of 8 come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime”, the Bench noted.

In this case, the witness (PW-1) stated that all the accused persons surrounded and assaulted the deceased Ram Kishore together with lathis and an iron rod. The Trial Court and High Court both concluded that the accused persons had a common intention to kill Ram Kishore, as evidenced by their collective actions.

Furthermore, the common intention required for Section 34 IPC means that all co-accused persons shared a community of purpose and common design to commit the crime. This common intention does not require a prior discussion or agreement among the co-accused, and it can be formed immediately before or even during the crime itself. In this case, the evidence supports the prosecution's argument that the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 34 IPC for the murder of the deceased, as they all came armed, assaulted the deceased together, and left the scene together.

The Court observed, “A plain reading of the above paragraph reveals that for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the coaccused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence”

The Bench reiterated that a mere common intention alone may not be sufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC unless the accused has taken some action to further that intention, which is not applicable in this case. The evidence demonstrates that the appellant not only shared a common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and striking the deceased along with the other accused persons.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ram Naresh v State Of UP (2023 INSC 1037)

Click here to read/download Judgment