CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Section 34 IPC: Criminal Act by Several with Common Intention Holds Each Equally Liable: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling upheld the convictions of Maheshwari Yadav and another appellant in the 1997 Bihar assault case. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 34, and Section 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), involving a fatal assault in the State of Bihar.

The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, dismissed the criminal appeal (No. 1515 of 2011), affirming the life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and a three-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC. The Court observed, "The existence of common intention will have to be accepted," underlining the principle of vicarious liability.

The Court emphasized the shared responsibility in the commission of the crime, stating, "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."

The judgment highlighted the consistency and credibility of eyewitness accounts, particularly from PW1 to PW5, despite them being relatives of the deceased.

The Court rejected the argument of non-examination of two potential eyewitnesses, considering the strength and quality of the testimonies presented.

The incident dates back to March 10, 1997, when the appellants, along with the accused no.3 (Paro Yadav), were involved in a violent assault. The victim, Gholti Yadav, was fatally injured by a bullet fired from a musket by accused no.3, while the appellants assaulted two other individuals, PW4 and PW5.

The Court took note of the prosecution's establishment of a motive linked to a prior altercation involving the accused no.3 and the deceased over a horse theft.

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to surrender before the Trial Court within one month to undergo the remaining sentence.

Date of Decision: 13th December 2023

MAHESHWARI YADAV & ANR. VS THE STATE OF BIHAR

 

Latest Legal News