Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Adarsh @ Binu, S/o. Bhaskaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
What is the requirement for establishing common intention under Section 34 IPC as applied to multiple accused? What is the significance of mere presence at the scene in attributing criminal liability under Section 34 IPC? What standards did the court apply to evaluate whether the appellants shared common intention and participated in acts in furtherance of that common intention?
Key Points: - The court held that mere presence at the place of occurrence is not sufficient to convict under Section 34 IPC; there must be overt acts in furtherance of common intention. (!) (!) (!) - It emphasized that common intention must be proven through objective evidence of conduct and acts done in furtherance, not solely by presence or encouragement without specifying how acts were done. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court set aside convictions under Sections 324 and 332 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC due to lack of established common intention and overt acts by the appellants. (!) (!) - The judgment cites relevant precedents explaining Section 34 as a rule of evidence for vicarious liability requiring acts done in furtherance of common intention. (!) (!) - The prosecution’s reliance on PW1’s testimony about presence and encouragement was deemed insufficient to establish shared common intention. (!) (!) - The detail that the appellants and others were present but did not demonstrate explicit acts in furtherance led to the acquittal of the appellants. (!) - The court references recent precedents (e.g., AIR 2001 SC 1344, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1518, AIR 2000 SC 1833) to define common intention and the need for objective proof. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
These are appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Third accused in S.C.No.1872 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track III, Thiruvananthapuram (originally arrayed as the 4th accused) has preferred Crl.Appeal No.944 of 2006. Similarly, the second accused (who originally arrayed as the 3rd accused) in the above case has preferred Crl.Appeal No.812 of 2006. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. Summary of the prosecution case shorn off unnecessary details is as under:-
The prosecution case is that on 15.03.2000 at about 3.30 p.m., 15 persons, after concealing deadly weapons like chopper, iron rod etc., reached at Priyadarshini hall at Fort, where abkari auction of toddy shops was conducted. Thereafter, the accused, after sharing common intention, wrongly restrained the defaco complainant and assaulted him by using chopper and iron rod with intention to do away the defaco complainant.
4. On the above allegation, FIR was registered by Fort Police as Crime No.91 of 2000 alleging commission of off
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
