Introduction

• This is a landmark judgement on the provisions of common intention under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Facts

• On the day of the crime, the accused along with three other people had reached a Post-office armed with firearms.
• While the fourth person stood outside, the other three, including the accused, entered it and demanded money from the Postmaster.
• Upon being verbally resisted by the latter, all three fired their weapons, with the result that one of the fired shots killed the Postmaster.
• As the cry of the latter raised an alarm, all four men began to escape.
• The accused, while escaping, fired his pistol multiple times, and was eventually caught.
• The Trial Court held the accused guilty of offence Murder under Section 302 of IPC read with Common Intention under Section 34 of IPC as they were satisfied that the deceased was killed in ‘furtherance of the common intention of all’.
• An appeal was filed before the High Court which adjudged the object of Section 34 and stated that the section does not create a new offence rather it uses the expression 'criminal act' and formulates a principle of liability.
• The High Court stated that when an act is done by several persons when all are principals in the doing of it, and it is immaterial whether they are principals in the first degree or principals in the second degree, no distinction between the two categories being recognized.
  • The High Court convicted the accused person under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
• The appellant applied for a Special Leave to Appeal against the decision of HC of Calcutta which was heard by the bench comprised of Justice Sumner, Justice John Edge and Justice Atkinson.

Issue Involved

• Whether the appellant was guilty of murder in furtherance of his common intention

Observations

• Privy Council observed that Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself.
• The Council also discussed the difference between object and intention, in case the object is common, the intentions of the several members may differ and indeed may be similar only in respect that they are all unlawful.
• The Object of Amendment in year 1870 in Section 34 was to punish participants by making one man answerable for the acts done by others, provided what is done is done in furtherance of a common intention.
  • This amendment added vicarious or collective liability arises.
• The Council held that, "a criminal act" under Section 34 means a unity of criminal behaviour, which results in punishment for acts done with other persons in furtherance of a common intention will be in the same manner, as if it were all done by the person alone.
• The Privy Council upheld the decision of the HC of Calcutta and dismissed the appeal.

Note

• Section 34 of IPC- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention 
  • When a criminal act is done by several persons in 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.
• Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for murder
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 394 of IPC- Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery
  • If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.