Section 34 IPC "Common Intention" can be formed in the moment- SC

The Supreme Court, "common intention" for the purposes of Section 34 IPC can develop spontaneously and in the course of the incident.

The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that in order for Section 34 of the IPC to be applicable, there must be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which entails a community of purpose and common design.

The prosecution's case against Gurbachan Singh and the other defendants in this case was that they arrived equipped with a "lathi," "toka," "axe," and "gandasi," respectively, and assaulted and injured a man named Teja Singh, who passed away on the scene. According to Section 302 IPC, the Trial Court found them guilty of murder. Due to the fact that Gurbachan Singh was only equipped with a "lathi" and had only attacked Teja Singh's feet, the High Court only partially upheld his appeal. They reasoned that it was impossible to infer a common motive from his actions.

In an appeal, the Supreme Court dissented from the High Court's conclusion and stated that Gurbachan Singh's behaviour and actions showed a shared desire to harm Teja Singh and bring about his death. In this situation, it noted: "According to the theory of joint culpability, Section 34 of the IPC holds a co-perpetrator who has taken part in the crime equally responsible. There must be a common intention among the co-perspirators, which entails a community of purpose and common design, for Section 34 of the IPC to be applicable. Common intention can be created on the go and while the event is happening. Common purpose is inherently a psychological reality, hence there won't typically be any direct evidence. Therefore, it is usually necessary to deduce from the established facts whether or not there is a shared aim. Only when the court can rule that the accused must have anticipated the outcome that followed in support of the common goal may constructive intention be determined."

Reconsidering the evidence presented, the court noted that regardless of the role they each played, all of the accused, including Gurbachan Singh, would be liable for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. As a result, it upheld the appeal and reinstated Gurbachan Singh's Section 302 IPC conviction.

State of Rajasthan vs Gurbachan Singh