The central legal point established is the requirement of common intention and participation in the commission of the offense for invoking Section 34 IPC.

1. An FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against six named accused, including the revisionists, for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons, including the revisionists, for the selfsame offence. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, including the revisionists, on 19.07.2014 by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved against the framing of charge, revisionists have preferred present criminal revision.

2. The incident allegedly took place on 24.01.2013 at 9:30 PM. A quarrel took place between Rajnesh Gupta, Annu, Vineet @ Chotu, Vishal, Smt. Urvesh (revisionist no.2) and Prachi Gupta (revisionist no.1). Informant’s brother Vijay Kumar, aged about 30 years, reached at the place of incident. Accused persons started abusing him. He was beaten with kicks and fists. Informant’s second brother Dabbu went there to save his brother Vijay Kumar. Rajnesh Gupta and his family members started assaulting Dabbu. Accused Vinod @ Chotu brought ‘kanta’ (sharp edged weapon) and inflicted blows on the head of Dabbu with such a sharp edged weapon, as a consequence of which, Dabbu fell on the ground. Vijay Kumar and Dabbu were taken to Government Hospital, Kichha, from where, they were referred to Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani. Dabbu was further referred to Brij Lal Hospital, Haldwani. He died there during the course of medictreatment. Such allegations, as were made in the FIR, were substantiated during the course of investigation and, that is why, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons, including the revisionists, for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists that no motive is assigned to the revisionists to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the story is improbable and no specific role is assigned to the revisionists.

4. It may be noted here that the revisionists are charged for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and not for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. Section 34 IPC says that 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. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083 that in order to apply Section 34 IPC, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention, and (ii) participation of accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved, but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 IPC will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked.

5. It was further held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramashish Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 1999(2) JCC (SC) 471 that it requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concert, therefore, there must be prior meeting of mind. It can also be developed at the spur of moment but there must be pre-arrangement or premeditated concert.

6. It, therefore, follows that if some act is done by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of co-accused, he or she is equally liable, like his co-accused.

7. John Milton, in his celebrated poem, ‘On His Blindness’ has said that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait’. The saying of John Milton is akin to Section 34 IPC which fastens criminal liability on each of the persons, who commit an act, in furtherance of common intention. It, therefore, cannot be said that the charge was wr