Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing common intention under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.  
• This was delivered by a 3- judge bench comprising of Justice S Das, Justice Bhagavati and Justice J Imam. 

Facts  

• The appellant, Rishideo, and his brother Ram Lochan Pandey were seen near the cot of the victim, Sheomurat, who was sleeping. 
• Ram Lochan was armed with a gandasa (a sharp weapon), while Rishideo carried a lathi (a wooden stick). Another individual, Banslochan, was guarding the door. 
• Ram Lochan was witnessed raising the gandasa after delivering a fatal blow to Sheomurat’s neck. The appellant, Rishideo, stood at the foot of the cot with his lathi. 
• Sheomurat succumbed to an incised neck wound, deemed fatal by medical evidence, with no signs of a lathi injury. 
• Following the attack, both brothers fled together and were seen running from the victim's room.  
• They later absconded and surrendered before the Magistrate only after proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against them. 
• The Sessions Judge convicted Rishideo, Ram Lochan, and Banslochan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (common intention) for the murder of Sheomurat. All three were sentenced to death, pending confirmation by the High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed the appeals of Ram Lochan and Banslochan, who accepted their sentences. The present appeal was filed solely by Rishideo. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the two accused persons present along with Ram Lochan will also be liable for committing murder by virtue of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court held that although Ram Lochan delivered the fatal blow that killed Sheomurat, the presence of all three accused suggests they had a premeditated plan to kill the victim. 
• The Court further observed that Ram Lochan being armed indicates that the other two accused were aware of and shared his intention to commit the murder. 
• The Court pointed out that the fact that only Ram Lochan delivered the fatal blow does not matter; all three accused were held responsible for the murder under Section 34 of the IPC (common intention). 
• Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the murder was committed in furtherance of a common intention developed at the scene. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment where the Supreme Court has laid down the law on common intention which emanates from Section 34. 
• Section 34 of IPC lays down the rule of vicarious liability under the Penal Code. 
• The provision makes a person liable for the offence when it is committed in furtherance of common intention.