The Supreme Court observed that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not attract when the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention. The judgment contains discussion about the scope of Section 34 IPC as follows: Accordingly, to attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The ultimate act should be done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan, which can be even formed at the spur of the moment or simultaneously just before or even during the attack. For proving common intention, the prosecution can rely upon direct proof of prior concert or circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference. However, incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis. By Section 33 of IPC, a criminal act in Section 34 IPC includes omission to act. Thus, a co-perpetrator who has done nothing but has stood outside the door, while the offense was committed, may be liable for the offense since in crimes as in other things they also serve who only stand and wait. Thus, common intention or crime sharing maybe by an overt or covert act, by active presence, or at a distant location but there should be a measure of jointness in the commission of the act. Even a person not doing a particular act but only standing as a guard to prevent any prospective aid to the victim may be guilty of common intention. Normally, however, in a case of an offense involving physical violence, physical presence at the place of actual commission is considered to be safe for conviction but it may not be mandatory when the pre-arranged plan is proved and established beyond doubt. Facilitation in the execution of the common design may be possible from a distance and can be tantamount to actual participation in the criminal act. The expression common intention should also not be confused with intention or mens rea as an essential ingredient of several offenses under the IPC - For some offenses, mental intention is not a requirement, but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is an ingredient of the offense, maybe identical with the common intention of the co-perpetrators, but this is not mandatory.