Published on: 16 July 2023 at 13:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Gaya Prasad Ramlal V. State of Maharashtra (1971)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that it is not necessary that the Accused to be armed with any weapon for invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is held that evidence of being members of an unlawful assembly with the common intention to commit the criminal act is sufficient to put the burden of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The actions during the criminal act to further accentuate the other accused in furtherance of the criminal act adds to the common intention towards the criminal act.
8. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the evidence that the appellant shouted “maro, maro” was not free from doubt. It was also emphasised that assuming that the appellant was present, he did not carry any weapon and arms and he had no motive and on the facts it could not be said that between Accused 1 and Accused 5 there was any prior meeting for a preconceived plan and therefore there was no common intention. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, in support of the proposition that care should be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention and the common intention required a prearranged plan and therefore there must be a prior meeting of minds. That statement of law is indisputable.
The evidence found by the High Court is that Rashidkhan and Mehmoodkhan were assaulted at a place which was a narrow open space surrounded by huts on all sides in the colony except for the two small openings in the east and the west. The attack on Rashidkhan was not unpremeditated. The suddenness is accentuated by the shout given by the appellant. The ghastly attack in the narrow space could not by combination of circumstances be preceded by any commotion.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra