STATEMENT OF FACTS

 A bright and ambitious 18 years old girl Neha who belongs to a lower middle class family where
The father used to work as a clerk in a private firm. To support her father Neha gave tuitions as
well along with her college classes. Rahul accused number 1 who is the college senior and a
friend of the victim and mohit accused number 2, 45 years of age with whom Rahul was
residing. The whole story started when Rahul started developing feelings for Neha.
 On Neha’s 18th birthday Rahul did organize a party for her at his own house and also gifted a
watch. 14th February 2013 Rahul proposed Neha for marriage and she told him to talk to her
parents. On 20th February her father rejected the offer and warned Rahul to not contact Neha
anymore. Thereafter Neha started avoiding Rahul and on one occasion she made it clear to
Rahul that she will never go against her parents and asked him to stop following her. However,
Rahul did not stop and continued to follow her physically and virtually. Neha reported the same
to her parents and in response they rebuked Rahul for the acts.
 Rahul couldn’t accept the rejection and narrated the whole story to mohit. Mohit could not bear
the pain of Rahul and suggested him to find neha alone and ask her for getting married in the
temple and if neha will show any resistance then mohit will threaten her with a bottle of acid to
pressurize her to come with them to the temple. Rahul who was initially reluctant however
agreed to the plan on the condition that acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for
compliance to their plan.
 23rd march 2013 according to the plan both rahul and mohit stopped neha on a lonely road.
Rahul approached neha and asked her to come along with him to the temple. Neha refused
clearly and then rahul started dragging her to the car at the same time mohit was threatening
with the acid bottle. Neha started shouting loudly and then mohit threw the acid on her face
and both of them fled away in mohit’s car, leaving neha in immense pain. Thankfully some
passerby took neha to the hospital where doctors after surgery opined that injuries were
grievous. A case was registered against both under section 326A r/w section 34 of IPC and rahul
was also charged for Section 354D of IPC. Rahul was arrested from his home with the bottle of
acid and the car which was used in the crime while mohit has absoconded.
 The sessions court convicted rahul U/S 326 r/w section 34 and sentenced for 10 years’ rigorous
imprisonment and also to pay the victim a compensation of 2 lakhs. He was also awarded
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years U/S 354D.
  Accused then approached the high court and was acquitted from all the charges, whereas the
appeal made by state for demanding life imprisonment and to enhance the compensation
amount was rejected by the high court. However, the high court recommended the district legal
services authority to decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the state
government to the victim. Thus aggrieved by the high court’s judgment, state on behalf of the
victim sought this appeal before the honorable court.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 2 There was common intention between Rahul and Mohit

2.1 Common Intention: Pre-arranged plan

According to Section 34 of IPC, 'when a criminal act is done by several persons in

furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner as if it were done by him alone.' Common intention presupposes a pre-arranged
plan, a prior meeting of minds of those involved in the crime. In the case of Subed Ali and
Ors. vs. The State of Assam1, it was held that it is not necessary for the accused sharing
common intention to actively involve in physical activity of assault. If mental element is
cogently established then it is sufficient to convict accused under section 34 IPC. Role may
either be active or passive.

The common intention should be shown to be premeditated which means it must be shown
that there was a prior meeting of minds which activated the common intention leading to the
commission of the criminal act.2 Therefore, the primary aspect is a pre-planned strategy to
carry out the plan for the intended result and each of such individuals shall be held

1
AIR 2020 SC 4657
2
see Devilal vs state of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 SC 1444
 accountable for an act performed in pursuit of a shared intention as if the conduct were
performed by a single individual. In Girija Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, the Supreme
Court observed that the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of common
intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such
intention.

Common intention does not imply that numerous people have the same intention. To
establish a common intention, each of them must be aware of and embrace the objective of
the others. In Ganesh Singh vs. Ram Raja4, it has been held that 'where parties go with a
common purpose to execute a common intention, each and everyone becomes responsible for
the acts of each and every other in execution and as the purpose is common, so must be the
responsibility.

In the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale vs State of Maharashtra5 it was observed that it is
not necessary that the act of several persons must be same or identically similar. What is
required is that these acts must be actuated by the same common intention. The common
intention required under Section 34, IPC need not be identical with the guilty intention or
mens rea, which is the ingredient of the offence and is to be distinguished from it. The latter
might be coincident with or collateral to the former.6

On similar ground, in an instant matter, even though the accused initially was reluctant to the
plan, he later agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm to be caused to Victim and the
bottle of acid to be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes. Therefore, it
can be reasonably contemplated that the agreement by the accused to use acid bottle as a tool
to threaten, is indeed a harmonious act of common intention and guilty intention of the
accused to commit a crime.

3
AIR 2004 SC 1808, (2004) 3 SCC 793
4
(1869) 3 BLR (PC) 44
5
2004, Cr LJ 1441 (SC)
6
see Om Prakash vs State AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CriLJ 452
 Thus, the Counsel humbly contends before the honorable court that both the accused had a
pre-arranged plan to throw acid on the Victim on the refusal to elope by her. The facts clearly
establish that common intention on the part of both the accused and section 34, IPC is rightly
pressed into service. The togetherness of the two accused at the time of the incident and soon
after the incident clearly establishes their common intention to commit the crime, therefore,
the Sessions Court rightly held both the accused jointly liable for the outrageous offence of
throwing acid on the Victim.

2.2 Principle of Joint Liability

Doctrine of Combination - When a crime is committed by a group in furtherance of common

intention or in prosecution of common object, each member of such group will be liable for
that in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Therefore, Section 34 of IPC
imposes criminal liability on the perpetrator and his associates, who in 'furtherance of the
common intention' participated in the commission of the offence. In such situation, each of
them becomes jointly liable.

There must be at least two persons to be charged under joint liability. Even if out of the two,
one is absconding and it is found that both participated in the crime then Section 34 can be
invoked even against one. The criminal act, therefore, contemplated in Section 34, IPC, is a
joint act which is the result of several persons individually acting in a particular manner.
Every individual member of the entire group charged with the aid of Section 34, IPC, must,
therefore, be a sharer in the joint act which is the result of their combined activity.

As observed by Mookerjee, J. in the case of Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghosh7, in this

connection;

"It is the expectation of aid, in case it is necessary to the completion of the crime and the
belief that his associate is near and ready to render it, which encourage and embolden the

7
AIR 1924 Cal 257 (FB) (D)
 chief perpetrator, and incite him to accomplish the act. By the countenance and assistance
which the accomplice thus renders, he participates in the commission of the offence.

It is, therefore, sufficient to hold a party as principal, if it is made to appear that he acted with
another in pursuance of a common design; that he operated at one and the same time for the
fulfillment of the same pre-concerted end, and was so situated as to be able to furnish aid to
his associates with a view to insure success in the accomplishment of the common
enterprise"

In Nand Rastogi vs. State of Bihar8, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is not necessary
that each one of the accused must assault a deceased to come within the purview of Section
34. It is enough that they have shared a common intention to commit a crime by doing their
assigned, similar or diverse acts. In an instant matter, it is humbly submitted that both the
accused shared common intention even though they had done different acts. Physical
presence of all of the several persons at the scene of the crime is necessary.9

For applying Section 34, it is not necessary to show, as a rule, some overt act on the part of
the accused.10 The establishment of an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow Section
34 to operate. A criminal act done in furtherance of intention of all by an accused need not be
overt, even a deliberate and conscience covert act is enough to bring such a person within the
ambit of Section 34.11 The counsel humbly submits that the High Court failed to take notice
of the fact that common intention was present as Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 have
agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance
of that common intention. It is further prayed that both the accused should be held liable
under Section 326A r/w Section 34 and Section 354D of IPC and there should be
enhancement of the punishment and compensation awarded by the Sessions Court.

2.3 Participation along with physical presence in the matter of physical violence
8
(2002) 8 SCC 9
9
see Krishnan vs. State (2003) 7 SCC 56
10
see Hari Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 146
11
see State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Pavitri Devi (2001) Cr LJ 1462 (SC); see also, Bala Ramchandran vs. State of
Kerala (2001) Cr LJ 2372 (SC)
 The important limb for the operation of the principle of joint criminal liability , is the
necessity of participation in the criminal act by all those who are charged with the offence.
Participation of every one of the group in the criminal act is a dominant feature of provisions
of section 34 of IPC. Participation is thus a necessary element or condition precedent to a
finding of joint liability. In Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai vs State of Bombay 12, it was
explained that in offences involving physical violence, presence of the accused apart from
participation, was essential.

Thus, accused no. 1 in this matter, who was not only physically present but also took part in
the offence of throwing acid to be held liable.

12
AIR 1960 SC 889