Summary
Four relatives attacked a man in the early hours of the morning. Two of them struck him with axes while the two appellants held him. The trial court convicted the two assailants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It acquitted the appellants on the view that merely holding the victim did not show a shared intention to kill. The High Court reversed the acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Section 34 imports constructive liability where there is a common intention and participation. All four arrived together at that hour with axes brought to the spot, which showed premeditation rather than a sudden incident. The appellants held the deceased so that the injuries could be inflicted, and the fact that they did not use the axes was no ground for remission.
Issues
- Whether accused persons who held the deceased while co-accused struck him with axes shared the common intention to commit murder under Section 34 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 34 creates no separate offence but imposes constructive liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention. That intention was inferred from the armed, premeditated arrival of all four accused and the appellants' role in holding the victim. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12)
Held
- Both courts concurrently found the widow (PW-6), the sole eyewitness, reliable, and there was no real dispute about how the incident occurred or who the accused were. The only question was whether holding the deceased excluded a shared common intention. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10)
- Following Jasdeep Singh and Virendra Singh, the dominant features of Section 34 are intention and participation. Participation need not always involve physical presence, and the common intention, a simultaneous consensus of minds, may form at any time. Section 34 lays down constructive liability, not a distinct offence. (¶ 11)
- All the accused arrived together in the early hours, two carrying axes brought to the spot and not picked up there, so the incident was premeditated rather than sudden. The appellants held the deceased while the others struck, which showed a common intention. The trial court's contrary view rested on an erroneous principle of law. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's reversal of the appellants' acquittal and their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.