SHASHI MOHAN versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 15-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 10 S.C.R. 978 
r 
A 
SHASHI MOHAN 
v. 
,.. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 15, 2008 
-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
• 
s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Prosecution under alongwith 
c two other accused -Accused not armed with any weapon - No 
overt act attributed to him -
Conviction by courts below - On 
r 
appeal, held: Conviction not justified - In the facts of the case 
accusation not proved against the accused - No evidence led 
to show his sharing of common intention with other accused. 
D 
s. 34 - Common intention - Invocation- Scope of- Held: 
., 
The aid of the provision is invoked when it is difficult to distin-
guish between acts of individual members of a party acting in 
furtherance of common intention - For invocation of the pro-
E 
vision it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of 
the accused. 
Appellant-accused (A2) along with two accused A1 
and A3 was prosecuted u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. There were 
three witnesses to the incident. The motive was alleged 
~ 
F 
to be enmity between the parties. Trial Court convicted all 
'll 
the accused u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. During pendency of 
appeal before High Court, A-1 died and his appeal abated. 
A-2 (appellant) was convicted u/s 302 r/w s. 34 while A-3 
was convicted under s. 302. 
G 
In appeal to this court, appellant-accused No.2 con-
tended that his conviction was not justified by aid of s.34 
I
as his pre-meditation with other accused was not proved 
,-~ 
and admittedly he was neither armed nor any overt act 
was attributed to him. 
H 
978 
SHASHI MOHAN v. STATE OF M.P. 
979 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: Under the provisions of Section 34 IPC the 
essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a 
common intention animating the accused leading to the 
doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. 
As a result of the application of principles enunciated in 8 
Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section·. 
302 r/w Section 34, in law it means that the accused is 
liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in 
the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The pro-
vision is intended to meet a case in which it may be diffi-
C 
cult 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 was taken by each of them. 
Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused 
by the particular accused himself. For applying Section D 
34 it is not necessary to &how some overt act on the part 
of the accused. However, in the background facts of the 
present case, the accusations were not established so 
r, 
far as the present appellant is concerned. No evidence 
was led to show sharing of common intention. [Paras 8 E 
and 9] [981-E,F,G & H; 982-A] 
., ' 
Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
AIR 1993 SC 1899 - referred to . 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
F 
No. 1093 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2007 of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl. 
Appeal No. 83 of 1993 
\ ~ 
Nagendra Rai, P.H. Parekh, Jetendra Singh and S.K. 
t 
Sabharwal for the Appellant. 
Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, Ram Naresh Yadav, Merusagar 
Samanta Ray and Sunny Choudhary for the Respondent. 
G 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
)'-
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Divi-
sion_Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. 
,,. 
B 
Three persons, nameiy, Rameshwardayal, Shashimohan and 
~ • 
Revimohan hereinafter described as A 1, A2 and A3 faced trial 
-~ 
for alleged commission. of offence punishable under Sections 
+-
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
short the 'IPC'). Additional Sessions Judge, Mor~na, found them 
~ 
guilty and sentenced each to life imprisonment During the pen-
' 
c 
dency of the appeal before the High Court A 1 died and, there-
fore, the appeal was held to have abated so far as A 1 is con-
f 
cerned. The present appeal is by A2. A1 and A2 were convicted 
~ t
and· sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while 
A~ was found guilty ofoffence punishable u_nder Section 302 IPC. 
• 
D 
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as fol-
}-
lows: 
' 
I 
On 3.3.92 at.9.30 a.m. on a road from Pipalwali Mata

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