Under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must establish a shared common intention among the accused to convict them. The Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases that for an accused to be convicted under this provision, there must be prior agreement and common intention to commit the crime.

Recently, in cases like Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ram Naresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that common intention does not necessarily have to be pre-planned; it can also develop during the commission of the crime.

Section 34 of the IPC states that when a criminal act is carried out by multiple individuals with a shared common intention, each of them is held equally liable as if they committed the act individually.

• The presence of a common intention is essential.
• All co-accused must act with a shared purpose.
• Pre-planning is not mandatory; common intention can develop during the crime.

Read Also:- Rethinking Senior Advocate Designations: The Debate Over Interviews and Fairness

Case 1: Supreme Court's Verdict on Conviction of Constables in Uttarakhand

On November 15, 2004, the Uttarakhand police received information about illegal liquor being smuggled in a Maruti car. A police team, including Constable 907 Surendra Singh, Constable 192 Surat Singh, and Constable Driver Ashad Singh, set out to intercept the vehicle.

When the car did not stop, Head Constable Jagdish Singh fired a single shot, which hit a female passenger, leading to her death. The victim's husband later filed a complaint against the police officers, alleging murder.

• Head Constable Jagdish Singh was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
• The three other constables were acquitted, as the prosecution failed to prove that they had a shared common intention to commit the crime.
• The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted all three constables under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s judgment.
• The Court ruled that merely being present in the vehicle does not prove common intention.
• The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the other constables had actively participated in the crime.

Read Also:- Supreme Court PIL Seeks School Admissions, Government Benefits for Rohingya Refugees

Case 2: Interpretation of Section 34 IPC in Ram Naresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ram Kishore and his brother Balram were attacked by four accused with iron rods and wooden sticks, leading to Ram Kishore’s death.

• The Trial Court and High Court both convicted all four accused under Section 302 r.w. Section 34 IPC.
• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that since the accused jointly attacked the victim, their shared common intention was evident.
• The Court clarified that common intention can develop during the commission of the crime, and the accused’s actions and mindset must be analyzed to determine this.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation: Common Intention & Section 34 IPC

1. Pre-Planned Crime:
   • If the accused had a prior agreement or plan to commit the crime, common intention is established.
2. Common Intention During Crime:
   • Even if the accused did not pre-plan, but developed a common intention while committing the crime, Section 34 IPC can still apply.
3. Mindset & Conduct of Accused:
   • The Court analyzes the behavior, participation, and intent of each accused to determine if they shared a common intention.

Read Also:- Gauhati High Court Seeks Answers from Arunachal Pradesh Govt on State Human Rights Commission Issues

"Mere presence at the crime scene is not sufficient for conviction."

"Common intention can develop during the crime, but it depends on case-specific facts."

"Conviction cannot be based solely on assumptions; there must be concrete evidence."

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that for Section 34 IPC to be applied, the prosecution must provide clear evidence of shared common intention. Simply being present at the crime scene or acting under a senior officer’s command is not enough for conviction. The mental state and actions of the accused must be carefully examined.