 Amrik singh v.

State of Punjab—Common intention may develop in the course of fight but the
there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference
 Birendra Kumar V. King Emperor—Section 34 when it speaks of criminal act done by several
persons in furtherance of common intention of all, has regard not to the offence as a whole, but
to the criminal act, that is to say, the totality of the series of acts which results in offence
 Dudely and Spephens—Doctrine of compulsion and necessity was not allowed as a defence
 Hanuman Prasad v. State of Rajasthan—Common intention does not mean similar intention of
several persons and to constitute a common intention it is necessary that the intention of
several persons constitute a common intention of each one of them be known to the rest of
them and shared by them
 Joseph Shine v. UOI—497 has been declared unconstitutional being violative of article 14 and
21 of constitutional.
 Locus Classicus cases of section 34—Birendra Kumar Ghosh King Emperor , Mehbub shah v. king
emperor and Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad
 Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka-- Posting comments about the ill treatment by the police of
their facebook page is may not amount to assault u/s 353 or criminal intimidation u/s 503
 Maya Mathew v. state of Kerala-- SC issued specific guidelines on interpretation of General
Law and Special Law
 Maya Mathew v. state of Kerala-- Where a special law is repugnant or inconsistent with an
earlier general law, the later special law will prevail over the ealier general law
 Maya Mathew v. state of Kerala-- Where when a provision of law regulates a particular
subject and a subsequent law contains a provision regulating the same subject , there is no
presumption that the later law repeals the earlier law as the rule making authority is deemed to
know the existing law on the subject
 Mehbub shah v. King Emperor— The applicability of sec 34 of the code the prosecution is under
an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which require a pre-arranged
plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for a criminal act of another, the act
must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all and the and the court had in
mind the ultimate act done in furtherance of common intention
 Mehbub shah v. King Emperor—The common intention within the meaning of section 34
implies a pre- arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it
should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged and
the section does not say “the common intention of all” or “an intention common to all” and it
requires common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act.
 Navneet Kaur v. State-- SC commuted death sentence of Delhi Bomb blast convict Devinder
Singh Bhullar by allowing the curative petition on the ground of 8 years delay in disposing the
mercy petition
 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad—SC uphold the law laid down by the privy council in the case
of Birendra Kumar Ghosh and Mahbub shah case.
 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad—The plan need not elaborate, Nor in long interval of time
required and it could arise and be formed suddenly, but there must be a pre- arranged plan amd
it is not enough to have same intention independent of each other
 Paras Ram v. State of Punjab—Merely abnormality of mind or partial delusion affords no
protection under section 84 of the IPC
 R v. Tolson – A woman charged for offence of bigamy under section 494 IPC were given benefit
of section 79 IPC as she married during the lifetime of the husband believing her husband to be
dead
 R. v. Martin—Doctorine of necessity is no defence to an absolute offence
 R. v. Prince – The accused took an unmarried girl under 16 years of age out of the possession
and against the will of her father and took the defence bonafidely and reasonably believed that
the girl was older than 16 years, but it was held that he is guilty of offence of kidnapping
 R. v. Tolson—Case related to ‘mistake of fact’
 Raj Kapoor v. Laxman –The producers, publishers charged for offence of 292 IPC were given
benefit of section 79 IPC as they genuinely believed that there is nothing obscene in the film and
that why the sooner board had issued a certificate
 Satrugan Chauhan V. UOI-- Death sentence of a condemned prisoner can be commuted to life
imprisonment on the ground of delay on the part govt. in deciding the mercy plea and the right
to seek mercy under Article 72/161 of the constitution is a constitutional right
 Sherali Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra—Taking defence of section 84 of the IPC it
must be proved clearly that at the time of commission of the acts, the accused by reason of
unsoundness of mind was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act were either morally
wrong or contrary to law
 Shiv Prasad v. State—The essence of the section 34 that the person must be physically present
at the actual commission of the crime, but he need not be present at the actual room, he can
stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of danger or
wait in a car nearby road ready to facilitate their escape, but he must be physically present and
participate in commission of the offence one way or the other
 Shreekantiah Ramayya v. State of Bombay, Suresh v. State, Virender Singh v. State of MP--
The dominant feature of section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action and
physical presence at the very spot is not always a necessary ingredient to attract the action.
 State of Bengal v. Shew Mangal Sen. – Leading Case of section 76 &79
 State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George -- Although a person commits an act which is made an
offence for the first time by a statue so recently passed as to render it impossible that any notice
of the passing statute could have reached the place where the offence has been committed, yet
his ignorance of statute will not save the accused from punishment
 State of Maharashtra v.MH George -- Absolute liability is not to be lightly presumed but has to
be clearly establish ed and the court should always bear in mind that unless the statue either
clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea, an accused should not be found guilty of
an offence unless he has got a guilty mind.
 State of Maharashtra v.MH George-- Criminal Intent is a psychological fact that has to be
proved even in regard to offences under the special acts unless it is specially ruled out by
necessary implication
 State of MP v. Madan Lal-- There cannot be any mediation or compromise in case of rape
 State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik – The question of good faith must be considered with
reference to the position of the accused and the circumstances under which he acted and good
faith requires not logical infallibility but due care and attention
 State of UP v. Iftikhar Khan—For Invoking section 34 of the Indian Penal Code it is not
necessary that any overt act is done by a particular accused and the section would be attracted
if the criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention.
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration-- Solitary or single cell confinement prior to rejection of
mercy petition by the president is unconstitutional
 Suresh v. State of UP-- “Another Illustration with the advancement of electronic equipment will
be etched like this: One of the such persons in furtherance of common intention, overseeing the
actions from distancing through binoculars can give instructions to the other accused through
mobile phones as to how effectively the common intention may be implemented. We do not
find any reason why section 34 cannot apply in the case of those two persons indicated in the
illustration."
 V. Sriharan@ Murugan v. UOI-- Mercy petitions filed under article 72/161 can be disposed of at
a much faster case
 Vasanthi Stanley v. State -- An offence under the the criminal law in a offence and does not
depend upon the gender of the accused and nobody can claim the discharge or acquittal on the
ground of gender
 Vijendra Singh v. State of UP -- Common intention which is the basis of section 34 is different
from the common object which is the basis of composition of an unlawful assembly and a
common intentiomn denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-
arranged plan and there must be a prior meeting of minds and an element of participation in
action on the part of accused persons.
 Vikram Singh v. Union of India-- Death penalty for kidnapping for ransom is not
unconstitutional