Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Common Intention Under S. 34 IPC Doesn’t Mandate Prior Agreement, Can Arise Moments Before an Incident

In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has brought clarity to the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that a common intention among co-accused does not necessitate explicit prior agreements. Rather, it can be a psychological aspect formed even moments before the commission of the offense.

The recent case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, which had affirmed the conviction of four accused individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in a murder case dating back to October 18, 1982.

During the incident, Balram and Ram Kishore were attacked by a group led by Virender armed with an iron rod, along with Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh wielding lathis. The brutal assault resulted in the death of Ram Kishore.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, clarified that for Section 34 IPC to be applicable, there must be a common intention indicating a shared purpose and design among all co-accused individuals. This common intention, the court asserted, is a psychological fact and can be formed moments before or during the occurrence of the incident.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, approached the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether he shared a common intention with the co-accused in killing Ram Kishore.

The court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on previous cases, highlighting that the evidence in this particular case demonstrated the active participation of all accused individuals in the assault. The decision emphasized that mere common intention alone might not trigger Section 34 IPC, but the specific circumstances of this case supported the conclusion that the appellant shared a common intention to cause harm.

As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case of Ram Naresh v. State of UP. This ruling sets a precedent by affirming that common intention, as per Section 34 IPC, is not contingent on explicit prior agreements and can evolve in the moments leading up to the incident.