Court caseSupreme Court of India, 2009

The appellant was convicted of murder with the aid of s. 34 IPC along with co-accused for a joint assault on the deceased in a village in Uttar Pradesh. The case against him rested on his presence with the other assailants, the weapon he carried and his conduct during the attack; no separate fatal blow was attributed to him. He argued before the Supreme Court that, without proof of a pre-arranged plan, he could not be made liable for the act of another.

The Supreme Court restated the settled requirements of s. 34: a criminal act done by several persons, a common intention of all to do that act, and participation by each in doing it. Common intention is rarely proved by direct evidence; it is inferred from the circumstances, the weapons carried, the manner of the attack and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident, and it may develop on the spot. Where the appellant came armed with the others, took part in the assault and did nothing to dissociate himself, the inference of a shared intention was justified.