Brief Facts
- Balram filed FIR stating that he and his brother, Ram Kishore, arrived at Babulal’s Dhaba, where they encountered Virender, armed with an iron rod (Rambha), along with Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh, all carrying lathis. The four individuals emerged from the Dhaba, shouting threats to kill Ram Kishore. They then surrounded Ram Kishore and brutally attacked him with the lathis and iron rod, causing injuries that led to his death.
- A case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigated. The trial court found all four accused guilty and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, a decision later upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether common intention under section 34 of the IPC would 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?
Held
- Apex Court dismissed the Appeal for the reason that appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and giving blows to the deceased Ram Kishore together with the other accused persons.
- For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused 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. 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 13