JAGAN SHRAVAN PATIL & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 906 
• 
A 
JAGAN SHRAVAN PATIL & ANR. 
v. 
... 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; 
c 
ss. 302, 323134 - Murder - Prosecution of six accused 
-Conviction u/ss. 143, 144, 148, 323 and 302 rlw s. 149 /PC 
by trial court - High Court convicting only three accused ul 
ss. 302, 323134 - SLP by convicted accused - Dismissed in 
D respect of one of the accused - Appeal of the two accused -
Held: Conviction by High Court justified - Evidence sufficient 
to fasten guilt on them. 
s.34 - Common intention - Applicability - Discussed. 
E 
Appellants (accused Nos. 4 and) alongwith co-
accused were convicted by trial court u/ss. 143, 144, 148, 
323 and 302 r/w s.149 IPC. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 
together and accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together filed two 
separate appeals before High Court. High Court acquitted 
F all the accused under the provisions they had been 
convicted by High Court. But convicted accused Nos. 4, 
5 and 6 u/ss. 302, 323/34 holding that these accused 
formed common intention at the time of occurrence as 
accused Nos. 4 and 5 helped accused No. 6 in enabling 
G him to attack the deceased. Special Leave Petition was 
filed before this Court by accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The 
same was dismissed as regards accused No. 6. The 
present appeal by accused Nos. 4 and 5. 
• 
H 
906 
JAGAN SHRAVAN PATIL & ANR. v. STATE OF 
907 
MAHARASHTRA 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
... 
HELD: 1. The evidence on record in the instant case, 
is sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. In the 
background facts and in the light of the principles as 
regards s.34 IPC, appeal is sans merit. [Para 4] [912-E-F] 
B 
2.1. Section 34 IPC has been enacted on the principle 
of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act. The 
Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a 
substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section 
is the element of participation in action. The liability of c 
one person for an offence committed by another in the 
course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons 
arises u/s 34, if such criminal act is done in furtherance 
of a common intention of the persons who join in 
committing the crime. [Para 6] [912-G-H; 913-A-B] 
D 
2.2. Direct proof of common intention is seldom 
available and, therefore, such intention can only be 
inferred from the circumstances appearing from the 
proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. 
E 
In order to bring home the charge of common intention, 
the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether 
direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting 
of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence 
' 
for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be 
it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must F 
' 
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. [Para 
--' 
6] (913-8-D] 
Ashok Kumarv. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109, relied 
on. 
G 
2.3. The existence of a common intention amongst 
< 
the participants in a crime is the essential element for 
application of Section 34. It is not necessary that the acts 
of the several persons charged with commission of an H 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. 
The acts may be different in character, but must have been 
actuated by one and the same common intention in order 
to attract the provision. [Para 6] [913-D-E] 
B 
2.4. Section 34 does not say "the common intention 
of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". 
Under the provisions the Section, the essence of the 
liability is to be found in the existence of a common 
intention animating the accused leading to the 
c commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such 
intention. The provision is intended to meet a case in 
which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of 
individual members of a party who act in furtherance of 
the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part 
D 
was taken by each of them. [Para 7] [913-F-H; 914-A] 
Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 
1993 SC 1899, relied on. 
2.5. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has 
E been caused by the particular accused himself. For 
applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some 
overt act on the part of the accused. [Para 7] [914-B] 
Case Law Reference: 
F 
AIR 1977 SC 109 
relied on 
Para 6 
AIR 

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