Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahbub Shah vs Emperor on 31 January, 1945
"13. It is now well-settled that the common
intention required by Section 34 is different from
the same intention or similar intention. As has
been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub
Shah v. King-Emperor (supra) 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 plan and that the
inference of common intention should never be
Cr.A. No. 1035/1995
12
reached unless it is a necessary inference
deducible from the circumstances of the case."
Maina Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 1976
"7. Section 34 IPC fixing constructive liability
conclusively silences such a refined plea of
extrication. (See Amir Hussain v. State of U.P.
[12]; Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan.[13])
Lord Sumner's classic legal shorthand for
constructive criminal liability, expressed in the
Miltonic verse "They also serve who only stand
and wait" a fortiori embraces cases of common
intent instantly formed, triggering a plurality of
persons into an adventure in criminality, some
hitting, some missing, some splitting hostile
heads, some spilling drops of blood. Guilt goes
with community of intent coupled with
participatory presence or operation. No finer
juristic niceties can be pressed into service to
nullify or jettison the plain punitive purpose of
the Penal Code."
Lallan Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 14 November, 2002
In Lallan Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar[14] the
Court relying upon the principle laid down in Barendra
Kumar Ghosh (supra) has ruled that the essence of
Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the mind of
persons participating in the criminal action to bring
about a particular result.
Goudappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2013
In Goudappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka[15]
the Court has reiterated the principle by opining that
Section 34 IPC lays down a principle of joint liability in
doing a criminal act and the essence of that liability is
to be found in the existence of common intention. The
Court posed the question how to gather the common
intention and answering the same held that the
common intention is gathered from the manner in
which the crime has been committed, the conduct of
the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the
determination and concern with which the crime was
committed, the weapon carried by the accused and
from the nature of the injury caused by one or some of
them and for arriving at a conclusion whether the
accused had the common intention to commit an
offence of which they could be convicted, the totality
of circumstances must be taken into consideration.
Bharwad Mepa Dana & Another vs State Of Bombay on 10 November, 1959
In Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. v.
The State of Bombay[17], it has been held that Section
34 IPC is intended to meet a case in which it may be
difficult to distinguish the acts of individual members
of a party who act in furtherance of the common
intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken
by each of them. The principle which the Section
embodies is participation in some action with the
common intention of committing a crime; once such
participation is established, Section 34 is at once
attracted. "