GOPI NATH @ JHALLAR versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 31-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOP! NA TH @ JHALLAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
JULY 31, 2001 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND DORAJSWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : Section 34. 
Common intention-Acts done by several persons in fartherance thereof-
C Joint responsibility of criminal acts-Performed by plurality of persons-
Determination of-Principles-Held, The doing of separate, similar or diverse 
acts by several persons, in furtherance of common intention, render each of 
such persons liable for the result-The common intention can be proved either 
by direct evidence or by inference from acts or other circumstances. 
D 
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read 
with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 
imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
Hence this appeal. 
E 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, the deceased was sitting 
F 
G 
on a cot in front of a shop and the accused exhorted to kill the deceased. When 
the deceased tried to run away the appellant and one of the accused attacked 
the deceased and he fell down. The third accused stood guard by the side of 
the two assailants shouting that if anybody dared to come, he too would be 
killed. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the appellant 
caused only a simple injury he could only be convicted under Section 324 IPC 
and, therefore, conviction under Section 302/34 IPC could not be sustained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 lays down the rule of 
joint responsibility for criminal acts performed by plurality of persons who 
joined together in doing the criminal act, provided that such commission is 
in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. Even the doing of 
separate, similar or diverse acts by several persons, so long as they are done 
H 
72 
.._ 
GOPJNATHv. STATE[RAJU,J.] 
73 
in furtherance of a common intention, renders each of such persons liable A 
for the result of all acts, as if he had done them himself, for the whole of the 
criminal action - be it that it was not overt or was only covert act or merely 
an omission constituting an illegal omission. Section 34, therefore, is attracted 
even where the acts committed by the different confederates are different 
when it is established in one way or the other that all of them participated B 
and engaged themselves in furtherance of the common intention which might 
be of a pre-concerted or pre-arranged plan or one manifested or developed 
at the spur of the moment in the course of the commission of the offence. 
The common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in 
furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct 
evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case C 
and conduct of the parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably 
depend upon the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case. 
177-C-F} 
2. The evidence on record established the conduct of the accused in 
shouting in unison to do away with the deceased and the appellant along with D 
the other giving blow simultaneously in spite of the victim trying to run away 
from the place by surrounding him and the further evidence about the 
exhortation made by the third accused exhibiting lathi that anybody who tries 
to come to the rescue of the victim will also be done away with, are more 
than sufficient in law to substantate the concerned move and the common E 
intention shared by all the accused to do away with the deceased. 
Consequently, the application of the principles enshrined in Section 34 IPC 
to the case on hand was fully justified and no exception could be legitimately 
taken to the same. 178-A-DI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F 
1014 of 1~99. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.98 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl. A. No .. 880 of 1980. 
Manoj Prasad for the Appellant. 
Praveen Swarup and Prashant Chaudhary for Pramod Swarup for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
RAJU, J. This appeal filed against the judgment dated 7.7. I 998 of a H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.880 of 
1980 by the second accused (Accused Nos. I and 3 having died during the 
pendency of the appeal in the High Court) relates to an occurrence on 9.1.1979 
at about 4 p.m. in Mashika village resulting

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.