Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Ram Naresh v. State of UP

Date of Order / Judgment: 1 st December, 2023

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal


According to the facts of the case, a First Information Report was lodged at the instance of Balram on 18.10.1982 when he along with his brother Ram Kishore reached Babulal’s Dhaba, where he saw Virender armed with iron rod (Rambha), Rajaram, Jogendra and Ram Naresh holding lathis in their hands. All the four persons came out of the Dhaba and shouted to kill Ram Kishore. The four persons cornered Ram Kishore and gave brutal blows to him with lathis and iron rod. As a result, Ram Kishore fell down and succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him.
A case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and was investigated upon. After examining the evidences, the trial court held all the four accused guilty and convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC which was affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant (Ram Naresh) approached Supreme Court.


Whether the appellant shared common intention along with other co-accused to kill the deceased Ram Kishore?


The Court observed that “A plain reading of the above paragraph reveals that for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.”


The Supreme Court reiterated that for Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code to be applicable, there must be a common intention among all co-accused individuals, indicating a shared purpose and design. Thus, in this case, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.