ii.

Whether the act done by the Appellants was in furtherance of common

intention or not?
It is humbly submitted that, the appellants are convicted and sentenced u/s.
302, alongside Sec. 34, dealing with Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention.

According to Sec. 34, it denotes that :-

When a criminal act is done by several persons in the furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone.
Common Intention –
 A common intention is defined as a predetermined plan acting in concert in
accordance with the plan. It must be proven that the criminal act was
committed in coordination with a pre-planned scheme. It exists prior to the
commission of the act in time, but it does not have to be a large gap.
Sometimes common intentions can be created on the spot if the gap is not too
long. The primary aspect is a pre-planned strategy to carry out the plan for the
intended result. Each of such individuals shall be held accountable for an act
performed in pursuit of a shared intention as if the conduct were performed by
a single individual. Common intention does not imply that numerous people
have the same intention. To establish a common intention, each of them must
be aware of and embrace the objective of the others.  A common intention is
defined as a predetermined plan acting in concert in accordance with the plan.
It must be proven that the criminal act was committed in coordination with a
pre-planned scheme. It exists prior to the commission of the act in time, but it
does not have to be a large gap. Sometimes common intentions can be created
on the spot if the gap is not too long. The primary aspect is a pre-planned
strategy to carry out the plan for the intended result. Each of such individuals
shall be held accountable for an act performed in pursuit of a shared intention
as if the conduct were performed by a single individual. Common intention
does not imply that numerous people have the same intention. To establish a
common intention, each of them must be aware of and embrace the objective
of the others. 
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 34 –
According to the broad principles of criminal culpability, the individual or
person who commits the offence has the primary responsibility, and only that
person may be found guilty and punished for the crime committed. However,
the IPC has several clauses that involve the notion of ‘common intention’,
which is present in criminal law jurisprudence across the world. This theory
allows an individual to be held criminally responsible for a crime committed by
another individual if the act was undertaken as part of a common purpose
agreed upon by the accused and the other individual(s). One such section is
Section 34 of the IPC.

Section 34 of the IPC 1860 stipulates that when multiple people commit
criminal conduct in pursuit of a common intention, each of them is
accountable for the act in the same way as if it were committed by him alone.
This clause, which establishes ‘joint culpability’ for an act, is an exception to a
fundamental principle of criminal law. The core of joint culpability is the
presence of a common intention in all parties concerned, which leads to the
commission of criminal conduct in pursuit of that common goal.

PRINCIPLE OF JOINT LIABILITY –

Section 34 makes no mention of any specific offence. It establishes the rule of
evidence that if two or more people commit a crime for the same purpose,
they will be found jointly accountable. 

Essentials constituting Section 34 IPC

Section 34, like any other crime, has several requirements that must be met in
order to find a person accountable for joint culpability. These are the
following:

A criminal act committed by multiple people

The most significant need is that criminal conduct be committed and that it
be done by numerous people. It is necessary to commit or refrain from
criminal conduct. The deeds undertaken by various confederates in
criminal activity may differ, but all must collaborate or engage in the illegal
business in some way. The core of Section 34 is the simultaneous
agreement of the minds of those involved in the illegal activity to achieve a
specific or intended goal.

The shared intent of all individuals to perform the unlawful act

As previously noted, the core of joint culpability under Section 34 of the IPC is
the existence of a common purpose to commit a criminal act in pursuit of a
common goal shared by all members of that group. The phrase “common
intention” indicates a prior concert or meeting of minds, as well as the
participation of all members of that group. The activities performed by various
members of that group may range in degree and type, but they must all be
motivated by the same common objective.

All people engaged in the commission of the act (in furtherance of that
shared intention) 
A criminal act committed by the entire group is required to establish joint
culpability. It is critical that the court determine some illegal conduct was
committed with the group’s cooperation in pursuit of the common intention.
The individual who initiates or assists in the conduct of the crime must
physically do an act to facilitate the commission of the real (planned) crime.

Difference between common intention and same intention

In order to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a single
intention shared by everyone. The phrases ‘common intention’ and ‘same
intention’ may seem similar, but they are not the same.

A common intention is a pre-arranged plan or previous meeting of minds

before the act’s commitment. The term ‘common’ refers to anything that
everyone has in the same proportion. It is typical for them to have a shared
object, purpose, or objective. 

Same intention, on the other hand, is not common intention because it does
not entail a pre-planned meeting, sharing, or thinking.

For example, A is B’s office co-worker. Even though A is higher in seniority, B

gets promoted. A and B are enemies. A intends to exact revenge on B. B, on
the other hand, has responsibilities as the house’s oldest son. C, who is
younger than B, was upset because his older brother B was promoted. A
decides to murder B on his way home from work one day. C, the younger
brother, also intends to murder B on his way home. A and C both catch and kill
B at the same location. They’ve both killed B here. However, they do not have
the same goal. They both wanted to assassinate B, but their methods were
different, and their intentions were not the same. A and C are accountable for
whatever conduct they perform but are not liable for the act of another. 

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS –

One of the first instances in which a court condemned another person for the
conduct of another person in furtherance of a common intention
was Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925 in which two people
demanded money from a postman as he was counting the money, and when
they shot from a handgun at the postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the
suspects fled without taking any money. In this instance, Barendra Kumar
claimed that he did not shoot the gun and was only standing by, but the courts
rejected his appeal and found him guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further held that it is not required that all
participants participate equally. It is possible to accomplish more or less.
However, this does not mean that the individual who did less should be
exempt from blame. His legal responsibility is the same.

In the case of Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad,1955 the Court held that a

person cannot be held vicariously accountable for the actions of another if
their purpose to commit the crime was not common. It is not a common
intention if their conduct is independent of the act of another. It will be known
for the same purpose.

In the case of Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar, 1963 the Court determined
that the length of punishment for each individual engaged in that conduct with
common intention is determined by the type and degree of the offence
committed. 

In Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra, 1998, the complainant party was attacked

by the accused, resulting in one person’s death. According to the witness,
three people were abusing the dead, while the fourth was merely standing
there with a knife in his hand. It was held that only three of the four accused
were responsible under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the
fourth did not have the same purpose.

In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, 1945 the appellant Mahboob Shah

was found guilty of the murder of Allah Dad by the Sessions Judge. He was
found guilty and condemned to death by the Session tribunal. The death
penalty was also affirmed by the High Court of Justice. The murder conviction
and death sentence were reversed on appeal to the Lordship. “When Allahdad
and Hamidullah sought to flee, Wali Shah and Mahboob Shah came next to
them and fired, and therefore there was proof on the spur of the moment that
they formed a common intention,” it was stated.

In Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 1996, the Court stated that the required element
under this clause is the criminal conduct committed in furtherance of a
common intention, and Section 34 did not require anything else to be
attracted. Although the court would want to hear about any overt conduct in
determining whether the individual had a common intention, the court
emphasized that the formation of an overt act is not a sine qua non for section
34 to function.

In the case of Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P., 1955, numerous people

assaulted a man with lathis as he walked across a field. The man escaped them,
and when they caught up with him, they assaulted him. It was determined that
the facts of the case were adequate to establish that the accused parties
shared a common purpose in conducting the criminal offence. As a result, the
most important thing here is to demonstrate the shared intent, which may be
done in any way.