The collective action of all the accused indicates sharing of common intention: Supreme Court.

February 16, 2024by Primelegal Team0

Case title: Ram Naresh vs State of U.P

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 3577 Of 2023

Decided on: 1.12.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present appeal arises from the trial court’s judgement and order convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the High Court’s affirmance of the same.

ISSUE RAISED:

Whether the appellant and the other co-accused had a common intention to kill the deceased?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

According to Section 34 of the IPC, when several people commit a criminal act with the same intention, each person is liable for that act as if he did it alone. As a result, if the accused’s participation in a crime is proven, as well as the common intention, Section 34 of the IPC will apply. Section 34 IPC does not require a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. Even during the incident, i.e. during the commission of the crime, a common intention can emerge.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the trial court did not consider any evidence to record a finding of “common intention” on the appellant’s part, and thus Section 34 IPC could not be used to convict him. He went on to say that the evidence on the subject has not even been discussed by the High Court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined that the evidence on record proves beyond a doubt that the accused persons attacked the deceased with the intent to kill him. The fact that they were all related and armed when they arrived at the scene indicates that they intended to kill him.
It stated that the accused had arrived on the scene collectively and delivered serious vital blows to the deceased with the weapons they were armed with, resulting in his death. The collective action of all the accused indicated a shared intention.

The argument that the appellant cannot be found guilty by using Section 34 IPC to support his or her conviction is without merit and cannot be upheld in light of the evidence in the record as well as the decisions made by the trial and high courts. As a result, the appeal is rejected without merit.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click to read the judgement

Primelegal Team

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *