Sl.No. Sec. Of law Gist of decision Mode of citation1 Sec.34 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 was taken by each of them. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Sec.34, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.

Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand – AIR 2004 SC 2294

2 Sec.34 Common intention – It has to be inferred from circumstances appearing from proven facts – Section can be invoked even if no injury was caused by particular accused.

Hari Ram v. State of U.P. - 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 607 (SC)

3 Secs.34 & 300

Common intention – Conviction under Section 34 in absence of charge – Accused persons were waiting for victim to come and they conjointly attacked him with common intention resulting into his death – There were multiple injuries on body of deceased – No evidence as to who caused fatal injury – Conviction of accused persons under Sec.302 read with Section 34 was proper even in absence of charge under Section 34.

Karnam Ram Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh – AIR 2004 SC 4363

4 Sec.34 Common intention – Is state of mind – Can only be gathered by inference drawn from facts and circumstances established in given case – Earlier decisions involving almost similar facts cannot be used as precedent to determine conclusions on facts in case on hand.

Ramesh Singh v. State of A.P. - AIR 2004 SC 4545

5 Sec.34 Ingredients – Applicability – For applying Section 34, it is not necessary to show some overt act on part of each accused – Section applicable even if no injury has been caused by particular accused himself – True contents of section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, position of law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself.

Harbans Kaur and another v. State of Haryana – 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 330 (SC)

6 Sec.34 Common intention – Section 34 has been enacted on principle of joint liability in doing of criminal act. Section is only a rule of evidence. It does not create substantive offence.

Manik Das v. State of Assam – AIR 2007 SC 2274

7 Sec.34 Ingredients of section – Existence of common intention amongst participants in a crime, essential element for application of Section 34 – Section does not say “common intention of all”, nor does it say “an intention common to all” - Essence of liability is to be found in existence of a common intention animating accused leading to doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention – Provision, intended to

Sachin Jana and another v. State of West Bengal – 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 496 (SC)

meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them – For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on part of accused.

8 Sec.34 Common intention - When criminal act is done with common intention all are liable in same manner as principal offender.

Shaik China Brahamam v. State of A.P. - AIR 2008 SC 610

9 Sec.34 Common intention – Section 34 has been enacted on principle of joint liability in doing of a criminal act – Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence – Distinctive feature of section is element of participation in action.

Sewa Ram v. State of U.P. - AIR 2008 SC 682

10 Sec.34 Common intention – Principle of – Application – Common intention presupposes prearranged plan and prior meeting of minds – Same can be inferred from conduct, incriminatory facts or circumstances – Each case has to be decided on its own merit and facts of each case may have to be dealt with differently.

Singapogu Anjaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh – 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 844 (AP) – A.Gopal Reddy and B. Seshasayana Reddy, JJ

11 Sec.34 Common intention – Accused going together armed with deadly weapons causing fatal injuries – All accused liable to be convicted – Absence of evidence as to part played by each accused is inconsequential.

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab – AIR 2008 SC 1243

12 Secs.34 & 149

Common object and common intention – Common object is different from ' common intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before attack – It is enough if each has same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of accused, his conviction can be maintained.

Gunnana Pentayya @ Pentadu & others v. State of A.P. - 2008 (3) LS 1 (SC)

13 Sec.34 Invocation of – Section could not be pressed into service, when no charge framed thereunder.

Shaikh Karimullah @ Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh – 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 682 (SC)

14 Sec.34 Scope – Section based on principle of joint liability – Essence of liability is to be found in existence of a common intention – Section applies even if no injury has been caused by particular accused himself.

Daya Shankar v. State of M.P. - AIR 2009 SC 1426 = 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 901 (SC)

True contents of section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself – Provision 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 common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.

15 Sec.34 Accused persons including appellant alleged to have fatally assaulted deceased with sticks, iron rod and fist – Except one all other eye witnesses ascribing only first blow to appellant – Conviction of appellant for murder liable to be altered to Section 325 – Moreover, Section 34 could not have been applied when no charge was framed thereunder.

Shaikh Karimullah v. State of A.P. - AIR 2009 SC 1711

16 Sec.34 Section based on principle of joint liability – Applicability of Section 34 – Common intention amongst participants is essential element – Proof of some overt act by every participant – Not necessary.

Munnilal v. State of M.P. - AIR 2009 SC 1759

17 Sec.34 Common intention – Acquittal of one of co-accused – That does not by itself absolve other co-accused of their conjoint liability of crime, if there is evidence against them of committing offence in “furtherance of the common intention”.

Y.Venkaiah v. State of A.P. - AIR 2009 SC 2311

18 Sec.34 Common intention – Section 34 is only a rule of evidence – It does not create a substantive offence.

State of U.P. v. Atul Singh – AIR 2009 SC 2713

Common intention – For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on part of accused.

19 Sec.34 Common intention – Provision does not say “the common intention of all”, nor does it say “and intention common to all” - It only requires existence of a common intention animating accused leading to commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.

Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat – AIR 2009 SC 3223

20 Sec.34 The common intention can develop during the course of an occurrence but there has to be cogent material on the basis of which the Court can arrive at that finding and hold an accused vicariously liable for the act of the other accused by invoking Section 34 – The common intention must be anterior in time to the commission of the crime – The intention of the individual has to be inferred from the overt act or conduct or from other relevant circumstances – The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the accused had a

Abdul Mannan v. State of Assam – 2010 (1) UPLJ 182 (SC)

common intention to commit the offence under which they could be convicted – During the course of commission of the offence, all that is necessary in law is that the said plan must proceed to act constituting the offence.

21 Sec.34 Common intention – Existence of – Is a question of fact – Courts, in most cases, have to infer intention from act or conduct of accused or other relevant circumstances – However, criminal liability can arise only when such inference can be drawn with certain degree of assurance.

Bengai Mandal Mandal v. State of Bihar – AIR 2010 SC 686

22 Sec.34 Common intention - “Common intention and commission of crime by members of an unlawful assembly” - It is a settled principle of law that to show common intention to commit a crime it is not necessary for prosecution to establish as a matter of fact, that there was a pre-meeting of minds and planning before crime was committed – It is not even expected of prosecution to assign particular or independent roles played by each accused once they are members of unlawful assembly and have assaulted deceased persons, which resulted in their death – Every person of such an unlawful assembly can be held to be liable.

Dharmidhar v. State of U.P. - 2010 (2) LS 145 (SC)