2010 Supreme(SC) 697

2010 (6) Supreme 795
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Virendra Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1316 of 2002
Decided on : 9-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The common intention postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds. It is the intention to commit the crime and the accused can be convicted only if such an intention has been shared by all the accused. Such a common intention should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop on the spot when such a crime is committed.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 302 read with section 34 - Prosecution of accused persons for going to house of deceased to teach him a lesson armed with lathis and a rifle, as the previous day deceased declined to follow their orders of reaping their crops because of his reasons- On A1’s exhortation, A2 fired at deceased causing his death-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Death of A1 during pendency of appeal-Appeal dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Plea that since deceased had died because of fire arm injury caused by A2, A3 could not be convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC-Admittedly, all the three accused in consonance with the pre arranged plan had gone to the house of the deceased to teach him a lesson for disobeying their orders-All three of them were armed with weapons, so there was a prior meeting of minds or pre- concert- In view of facts of case when section 34 IPC is invoked then on the principle of vicarious or constructive liability A3 was clearly guilty under section 302/34 IPC along with his father A1 and his brother A2-The trial court and the High Court correctly applied the law- The appeal filed by A3 being totally devoid of any merit, dismissed. (Paras 52, 53)

        Criminal Trial- Common intention -The words “common intention” implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan- It must be proved that criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan-Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point of time, which need not be a long gap- The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation-Though common intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime showing a pre-arranged plan and prior concert- The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference- (Para 18)

        Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 34-Scope and Ambit of- Section 34 is not a substantive offence- It is imperative that before a man can be held liable for acts done by another, under the provisions of this section, it must be established that there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two and the person sought to be so held liable had participated in same manner in the act constituting the offence- Unless common intention and participation are both present, this section cannot apply (Para 21)

       Facts of the Case :

        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for going to house of deceased to teach him a lesson armed with lathis and a rifle, as the previous day deceased declined to follow their orders of reaping their crops because of his reasons. As per prosecution case on A1’s exhortation, A2 fired at deceased causing his death. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea that since deceased had died because of fire arm injury caused byA2, A3 could not be convicted under section 302 read with section 34of IPC.

       Findings of the Court :

        Admittedly, all the three accused in consonance with the prearranged plan had gone to the house of the deceased to teach him a lesson for disobeying their orders. All three of them were armed with weapons, so there was a prior meeting of minds or pre- concert. In view of facts of case when section 34 IPC is invoked then on the principle of vicarious or constructive liability A3 was clearly guilty under section 302/34 IPC along with his father A1 and his brother A2.The trial court and the High Court correctly applied the law. The appeal filed by A3 being totally devoid of any merit ,held liable to be dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.