Common Intention

Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Common intention

Vicarious liability

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing

Trial Court convicted the present accused merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures, and probabilities

To attract the provision of S.34, P.P.C., there must be some proof of an overt act on the part of each accused in furtherance of the common intention

Mere presence of an accused without any overt act at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence with the co-accused, who committed the offence, might not be sufficient to connect the former with vicarious liability

Principle of vicarious liability cannot be invoked unless and until common intention and object are proved

For that purpose, strong circumstances must exist to manufacture a common intention, which was missing in the present case

Prosecution had failed to establish the common intention and common object of the accused for the commission of the crime, and no corroborative evidence was produced by the prosecution with the statement of eye-witness

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

In order to constitute an offence under section 34, P.P.C., it is not required that a person should necessarily perform any act by his own hand, rather the common intention presupposes prior concert and requires a pre-arranged plan

If several persons have the common intention of doing a particular criminal act and if, in furtherance of their common intention, all of them join together and aid or abet each other in the commission of an act, then the one who has not actually done the act with his hands, but helps by his presence or by other act in the commission of the main act, he would be held to have himself done that act within the meaning of section 34, P.P.C.

Once it is proved that the accused persons had common intention to commit the crime, it is immaterial as to what part was played by whom, as the law as to vicarious liability is that those who stand together must fall together.

Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries

Record showed that the accused and his sister's son came to the crime scene duly armed with deadly weapons ostensibly to use them as preplanned

Nature of the weapon would legitimately lead to the inference that they were prepared to use them on the complainant party

Section 34, P.P.C., required that accused was one of the participator and the joint criminal action in the course of which the offence was committed

Emergence of the accused and his sister's son carrying firearms, on the crime scene and firing at the complainant party and fleeing from the spot together

Said conduct indicated the existence of pre-concert and they did share common intention in committing the crime and as such, the accused could not escape his liability with regard to the commission of offence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were attributed specific role that they were involved in the illegal sale and purchase of the government stamped medicines by committing fraud and forgery

Huge quantity of government medicines had been recovered from their possession at the time of arrest, which prima facie connected them with the commission of alleged offence

Allegations against accused persons were of serious in nature, as they were involved in the illegal sale and purchase of government stamped medicine in huge quantity, thereby causing loss to the government exchequer, so also the poor and needy patients were deprived of the legitimate right of provision of government medicines at government hospitals

If such practice was not contained with iron hands, the same would be repeated again and again

Offence with which the accused persons were charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. disentitling them to the concession of bail

Accused persons had failed to make out a case of further inquiry

Applications were dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that son of complainant aged about twenty five years went missing and that the complainant came to know that the alleged abductee was last seen in the company of accused and co-accused persons

First Information Report had been lodged after an unexplained delay of one year, wherein the time of occurrence was not mentioned

Source of information had not been mentioned

During investigation, the abductee was not recovered nor any evidence was brought on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence

Only allegation against the accused was that he was in use of mobile set of the alleged abductee

Case against accused was one of further inquiry

Investigation had already been completed

Challan had been submitted before the Trial Court

Person of accused was no more required to the prosecution

Complainant had no objection if the accused was granted bail or he was acquitted from the charge

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Mere presence of an accused with another accused who commits the crime would not constitute his common intention unless there is an evidence referring to the criminal act of that accused committed in furtherance of common intention with the other accused.

Person like accused, who even according to prosecution version did not repeat the fire on injured persons, could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period by way of pre-trial punishment

Accused at the time of occurrence was less than 16 years of age, therefore, his case fell within the definition of "child" as defined under Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018

Section 6(3) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 provided that where a juvenile was arrested or detained for commission of a minor or major offence for the purposes of the Act, he shall be treated as if he was accused of commission of a bailable offence, hence the injuries attributed to the accused were bailable in nature

30 bore pistol was recovered on the indication of accused but no crime empty was taken into possession during spot inspection, hence such recovery was inconsequential

Petition for grant of bail was allowed.

Name of accused was not mentioned in the FIR and the same was lodged against unknown persons though the victim/ complainant knew the accused and his family

FIR was lodged with a delay of 2 days without any explanation

No complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record was pointed out

Record was silent about the vehicle used for kidnapping and the place where the victim was kept for about seven days, therefore, probability could not be ruled out that the accused might have been falsely involved in the case

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Common intention

Scope

Record showed that all accused fired upon the police party with intention to kill them and whether or not it was one of their bullets which caused the fatal wound to any Police Officer

Such was a classic case of murder with common intent falling within the purview of Ss. 302(b)/34, P.P.C. which based on the evidence the accused were guilty of

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Admittedly it was only the main co-accused, who had an axe to grind with the complainant on account of his ex-wife having married the complainant

Furthermore it was also an admitted position that it was the main co-accused who fired upon the complainant and that the role of the accused and another co-accused was restricted to having allegedly accompanied the main co-accused and resorting to aerial firing while leaving the premises

No other role had been attributed to the accused and co-accused in the entire episode

In order to hold the accused and co-accused to be vicariously responsible for the act of main co-accused, it was necessary to show that the former two shared a common intention with the latter

Apart from an assertion that the accused and co-accused had accompanied the main co-accused to the place of occurrence there was no evidence produced at trial to show that the all three had come with a pre-arranged plan to murder or injure the complainant

Accused and co-accused were armed too and there was nothing stopping them from also shooting at the complainant, but they did not

Though they might have shared dislike for the complainant, but it was not proved or any evidence shown which would even prima facie show that the accused and co-accused shared a common intention with the main co-accused

Allegation of aerial firing while leaving the premises levelled against accused and co-accused was also doubtful in view of the fact that the police found only one empty from the place of incident

Investigation Officer admitted at trial that the parcel in which even that one empty cartridge was sealed was not signed by the witnesses to the recovery, which further cast doubt on the allegation

No recovery was effected from the accused and co-accused after their arrest though they were said to be armed with pistols

In such circumstances benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused and co-accused

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to accused and co-accused were set-aside and they were acquitted of the charge.

Common intention presupposed prior concert; it required a pre-arranged plan because before a man could be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all

Inference of common intention should never be reached unless it was a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case

All that was necessary was either to have direct proof of prior concert, or proof of circumstances which necessarily led to that inference or the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.

Mere presence of an accused at the place of incident with co-accused who committed the offence may not be sufficient to visit the former with the vicarious liability, but there should be some circumstance manifesting a common intention

Generally, common intention inter alia, precedes by some or all of the following elements, namely, common motive, pre-planned preparation and concert pursuant to such plan

However, common intention may develop even at the spur of moment or during the commission of offence

Conversely common intention may undergo change during the commission of offence.

Prosecution with regard to S.34 of P.P.C., is required to prove: that a criminal act must be done by several persons; that the criminal act must be done to further the common intention of all; that there must be a pre-arranged plan and criminal act should have been done in pursuance thereof; and that there must be participation of all persons in furtherance of common intention.

Charge of sharing common intention would always require proof that gathering of more than one was with active knowledge of ultimate consequence of their gathering i.e. determined goal or likely to happen of a consequence in result of actions of all or any one of them.

Prosecution asserted the motive but failed to prove the same and such failure had reacted against sentence of death passed on the charge of murder.

Necessary conditions for the application of Section 34, P.P.C., were common intention to commit an offence and participation by all the accused in doing an act or acts in furtherance of the common intention

If the said two ingredients were established, all the accused would be liable for the offence

If two or more persons had common intention to commit murder and they had participated in the acts done by them in furtherance of that common intention, all of them would be guilty of murder

Moreover, common intention presupposes prior concert

Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan because before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all of them

Plan needed not be elaborated nor was a long interval of time is required, it could arise and be formed suddenly, however, there must have been a prior meeting of minds.

Questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the accused are to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.

No ocular account of theft of the motor vehicle was available, however, during investigation the police authorities had obtained a copy of the CCTV footage in which the accused persons were seen stealing the vehicle

On the basis of identification of accused persons from CCTV footage, spy information was obtained and on the referred pointation the accused persons were arrested and they had led to the recovery of stolen vehicle

Person who had prepared the CCTV footage had appeared before the court and had categorically deposed that he had shown the CCTV footage to the Investigating Officer and had also made a copy of the same

No dent was caused upon his testimony by the defence during the course of cross examination

Attempts were made to cast doubt on the credentials of the said witness to the effect that he was not an expert and his opinion was immaterial

Said witness had not appeared as an expert but had only made copy of CCTV footage/record in USB and hence was a maker of the said document

Accused persons had also led to the recovery of the stolen vehicle which was identified by the complainant

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere presence of a person with an accused at the relevant time could not lead to the inference that he shared common intention with other

If the prosecution alleged that the offence was committed with common intention which presupposed prior consent, it must be proved that the offence was committed by pre-arranged plan

Inference of common intention was not be drawn unless it was proved by direct evidence or circumstances.

Mere presence of an accused at the time of commission of crime is not enough to hold him responsible for commission of crime, unless the prosecution succeeds in establishing that the accused had also shared common intention or common object with his co-accomplices or helped or facilitated them in the crime.

Two persons were charged for a solitary injury on person of the deceased and the prosecution was to answer that whose fire shot proved fatal

Joint enmity though was alleged to both of the accused, but the prosecution could not collect the required substance and even it failed to prove the shared intention between the two

Fact could not ignore that both the accused were shown armed with Kalashnikovs, but the recovery of only seven empties from the place of incident negated the version of the complainant, rather it told the involvement of a single accused

Had there been two accused the result would have been different with greater recoveries from the spot

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Section 34 of P.P.C. embodies common sense principle that if two or more persons intentionally did a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it individually

Common intention implies acting in concert in pursuance of pre-arranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from incriminating facts

Words "in furtherance of common intention of all" has introduced as an essential part of S. 34, P.P.C. the element of common intention prescribing conditions under which each person may be criminally liable where there are several actors

Common intention is an intention to commit crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime only if he has participated in that common intention.

If several persons would unite with common purpose to do any criminal offence, all those who assist in the completion of their object, would be equally guilty

Foundation for constructive liability was the common intention in meeting the accused to do the criminal act and the doing of such act in furtherance of common intention to commit the offence

In order to constitute an offence under S.34, P.P.C., it was not required that a person should necessarily perform any act with his own hand

If several persons had the common intention of doing a particular criminal act and if, in furtherance of their common intention, all of them join together and aid or abet each other in the commission of an act, then one out of them could not/actually with his own hand, do the act but if he helped by his presence or by other act in the commission of an act, he would be held to have himself done that act within the meaning of S.34, P.P.C.

All eye-witnesses examined before Trial Court did not level any allegation against co-accused persons but only deposed to the extent of their presence at the spot at the time when accused fired shots upon deceased

Both the co-accused did not participate in the occurrence nor caused any injury to anyone

No evidence was produced by prosecution that co-accused persons shared common intention with main accused for murdering deceased

No direct motive was alleged against both the co-accused by prosecution

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to both co-accused persons by Trial Court and acquitted them of the charge as prosecution had failed to prove its case against them

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Once it is found that the accused persons had common intention to commit the crime, it is immaterial as to what part was played by whom as law as to "vicarious liability" is that those who stand together must fall together

Question that what injuries were inflicted by a particular accused in cases to which S.34, P.P.C. applies is immaterial

Principle under the said section is that where two or more persons acted with a common intention each is liable for the act committed as if it had been done by him alone.

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone

Common intention presupposes a prior concert, prearranged plan but that does not mean that there must be long interval of time between the formation of the common intention and doing of the act

Direct evidence is not necessary to adduce common intention and in many cases, it may be impossible to do so

Common intention may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties.

Prosecution case was that deceased police constable was driving with Frontier Corps personnel in private car when he was alerted by local people about the accused persons who were committing robbery whereupon the deceased got down from his vehicle and was fired upon by the accused

Eye-witness was a chance witness who was fellow police officer related to the deceased

Eye-witness gave no description of the accused whom he saw firing on the deceased

Incident occurred during night-time and although eye-witness claimed that there was light yet no bulb or other proof of light was recovered

Eye-witness, despite being on a motorbike, did not chase the accused

Owner of the bike was not examined as a witness which would have given vital corroborative evidence

Traffic policemen did not give evidence, who according to eye-witness cried at the scene

Frontier Corps personnel who were travelling with the deceased were not examined

Statement of eye-witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded with a delay of 12 days

Empties recovered from the scene were 9mm yet the Forensic Science Laboratory report found same to be of .30 bore

No weapons were recovered from the accused and both of the accused persons were acquitted in cases against them under Arms Ordinance

Prosecution witnesses were police officers, some of whom were related to the deceased

No independent persons were associated with the case notwithstanding the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C., especially when a crowd had gathered after the shooting at the place of incident

Prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, they were entitled to its benefit

Confirmation reference was answered by the High Court in the negative.

In the present case, by same impugned judgment, Trial Court had acquitted co-accused from the charge of S. 302(b), P.P.C.

Reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal of co-accused was that prosecution had failed to prove any common intention of the co-accused in committing murder of deceased

Said reasoning given by the Trial Court for exonerating co-accused from the charge of S. 302(b), P.P.C. were not convincing

Admittedly, the accused was duly armed with firearm weapon which he used for committing murder of deceased

Such fact must have been in the knowledge of co-accused

Nothing was on the record or even in the statement of co-accused that he prevented accused from using such firearm weapon or that he did not have any knowledge that accused was duly armed with gun

When the culprits had come at the place of incident admittedly with common intention to commit robbery, then what was the fun in bringing the firearm weapon with him by accused at the place of incident

Certainly, strong presumption/inference could be gathered that it was with an intention that in case the accused would face any difficult situation and/or if there would have been any apprehension of their capture while committing the offence of robbery, accused would use the firearm weapon for saving their skins

Co-accused, in circumstances could not be totally exonerated from the charge of sharing common intention in the commission of offence under S. 302(b), P.P.C.

If several persons would unite with common purpose to do any criminal offence, all those who assist in the completion of their object would be equally guilty

Foundation for constructive liability was the common intention in meeting the accused to do the criminal act and the doing of such act in furtherance of common intention to commit the offence

In order to constitute an offence under S. 34, P.P.C., it was not required that a person should necessarily perform any act with his own hand

If several persons had the common intention of doing a particular criminal act and in furtherance of their common intention all of them joined together and aided or abetted each other in the commission of an act then one out of them could not actually with his own hand do the act but he helped by his presence or by other act in the commission of any act, he would be held to have himself done that act within the meaning of S. 34, P.P.C.

One of the essential elements is a pre-arranged plan or a pre-concert or prior meeting of minds.

Accused persons were not connected with motive set up by prosecution and motive was also ruled out of consideration by High Court

Alleged recoveries affected from accused persons during investigation were legally inconsequential because no crime empty was secured from place of occurrence connecting recovered firearms with alleged offences

In absence of proof of alleged motive sharing of common intention by accused persons with their co-accused for purposes of killing two persons and injuring two others was quite suspect

Something had happened at spot leading to occurrence in question and it could well be that in such a sudden occurrence every accused person might have been responsible for his own individual act

No evidence was available regarding sharing of common intention by accused persons with their co-accused

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons for murder as deceased had not been harmed by accused persons at all

Supreme Court accepted compromise between the parties

Appeal was allowed.

None of ocular witnesses attributed any injury to accused persons and all prosecution witnesses admitted that accused persons were empty handed

All ocular witnesses were close relatives despite as per witnesses that independent persons were also present on the spot

Although it was not necessary for prosecution to record statements of independent witnesses but to avoid false implication and safe administration of justice prosecution was to have recorded statements of independent witnesses

Entire prosecution would have established fact that accused persons were present at relevant time and mere presence at spot itself was not a connect to crime

Occurrence was not premeditated and suddenly took place but prosecution failed to establish through incriminating evidence with regard to common intention of accused persons to commit murder of deceased

High Court declined to interfere in order of acquittal passed by Trial Court as same was neither arbitrary nor contrary to evidence brought on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was, admittedly, empty handed at the place of occurrence , while as per the Medical Report the deceased had received bullet injuries

Contents of FIR showed the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence, but the same was silent with regard to any kind of role played by the petitioner , which alone had made his case that of further inquiry in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had common intention and common object to commit the crime or his presence was unintentional

Complainant, through supplementary statement, had attributed to the petitioner, a role of controlling the deceased but the complainant had failed to disclose as to why he had not mentioned the role of the petitioner in the first information report

Such role assigned to the petitioner subsequently through supplementary statement created a reasonable doubt about his participation in the commission of offence

Tentative assessment of record prima facie suggested that it was a case of further inquiry

Investigation in the matter had been completed, trial had commenced and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of investigation or probe

Keeping petitioner behind the bars would not serve any fruitful purposes; he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Co-accused while empty handed had allegedly raised lalkara to main accused, who with pistol had already come at the place of occurrence, prior to the arrival of co-accused

Question of raising lalkara necessarily required further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Age of accused was about 12 years at the time of occurrence

Co-accused, as per FIR, was empty handed, although allegedly present at the place of occurrence, yet no specific overt act was alleged against him

General allegation of grappling and beating the deceased was falsified by postmortem examination report which showed no such injury

Exaggeration on the part of complainant by joining hands with police, widening net and roping first accused (being mother) and second accused (being brother) of main accused in the case, with mala fide intention, could not be ruled out

Accused persons had already joined the investigation

Investigating officer had categorically stated that nothing was to be recovered from the accused persons

Application for pre-arrest bail was allowed, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances.

To constitute common intention, it was necessary that intention of each one of the accused persons was known to the rest and shared by them

Accused was entitled to the benefit in case there was a lacuna.

Prima facie accused persons shared their common intention in commission of heinous offense and tried to conceal evidence

If several persons were united with common purpose to do any criminal offense, all those who would assist in completion of their object would be equally guilty

Nothing was available on record to believe that complainant party had falsely implicated accused persons in commission of offence

Charge was framed by Trial Court and case was to be fixed for recording of evidence

Material available connected accused persons with commission of offense which carried capital punishment and they failed to make out their case within purview of S.497(2) of Cr.P.C.

Tentative assessment of evidence was to be made and deeper appreciation was to be avoided

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Complainant's case against accused was that he abused complainant's son, beat him, issued threats of killing him and thereafter sent three persons to his house, who gave beating to him, snatched his wallet and damaged the wind-screen of his vehicle

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused for the reason that eye-witness deposed in the court that he had seen three persons who were beating complainant's son, but during examination-in-chief he could not identify the accused person even though he was present before the court

Second eye-witness deposed that he was passing by the place of occurrence when incident took place and he had seen the incident but he could not identify the accused before the court

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of 9 days for which no satisfactory explanation was furnished

False implication of accused in the case with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

When offence was committed in furtherance of common intention, it became wholly immaterial as to who caused the injuries and who did not

All the participants of the occurrence were considered equally liable for the same punishment as could be awarded to the accused who caused the fatal injuries.

Plea of alibi was not raised by accused in his bail application before the Trial Court, but was raised for the first time before the Chief Court

No such embargo existed to argue a ground before Chief Court, if same was not taken in the bail application, but any such ground which had a material bearing on the fate of the case, if was waived and not raised before the Trial Court, appellate court could ignore the same

Plea of alibi could not be entertained and same could be agitated before the Trial Court, if so needed

Allegations of abduction were attributed to one of the co-accused, who though was real brother of accused, but question of involvement of accused was one of further inquiry, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping accused in jail as his co-accused were at large

No allegation was on record that it was the accused who kidnapped or abducted alleged abductee with intent to compel her for marriage to a person against her will

Statement of alleged abductee under S.161, Cr.P.C. was recorded after a period of 3 months, without any reason for such a long delay

Alleged abductee in her said statement had not raised any incriminating allegation against accused

Case of accused had become one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Eye-witness had proved that the accused in furtherance of common intention, equipped with arms were present at the place of occurrence, waiting for the arrival of deceased who was to come there for the hearing of his case

All the accused persons were gathered at the place of occurrence and on the arrival of the deceased, fired at him and made aerial firing to disperse the people present over there

Such conduct of the accused persons showed their common intention and pre-planning to kill the deceased.

Record revealed that although the accused persons were nominated in FIR , however, no injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to them and they had been assigned the role of causing injuries on the heads of injured ladies falling under S. 337-A(ii), P.P.C.

Vicarious liability of accused persons as well as sharing the common intention with co-accused for committing murder of deceased would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Case of accused persons called for further inquiry into their guilt as envisaged under S.497(2) of Cr.P.C

Accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Question of sharing common intention with co-accused would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence.

Petitioners, were nominated in Rapt under S.337-L(2), P.P.C., with the role of causing injury with fist and kiks on the person of injured/complainant

Trial Court on the basis of confessional statements of the petitioners, convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to pay Daman in sum of Rs.3000 for each injury

Said quantum of Daman was enhanced and fixed Rs.10,000/- for each injury

Petitioners, challenged said enhancement, whereas, injured/ complainant, filed petition for awarding sentence of imprisonment to the petitioners

Petitioners, having confessed their guilt voluntarily, their conviction on the charge of offence under S.337-L(2), P.P.C., was maintained

Petitioners were previously non-convicts

Nothing had been brought on record by the prosecution to show involvement of the petitioners in any other case to consider them hardened, dangerous criminals

In all cases of hurt provided for in Chapter XVI, P.P.C., the normal punishment to be awarded to the offenders, was payment of 'Arsh' or 'Daman', and the optional additional punishment of imprisonment as Tazir, provided for the relevant offence, could be awarded to the offender only where the offender was a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, or the offence had been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour

In the case of such an offender the sentence of imprisonment as Tazir, would not be less than one-third of the maximum imprisonment provided for the hurt caused

Trial Court had rightly extended benefit of S.337-N(2), P.P.C., to the petitioners

No reason existed to enhance the amount of Daman imposed on the petitioners by the Revisional Court

Order, enhancing amount of Daman, was set aside, and that of Rs.3000 was upheld and maintained.

Prima facie no other exceptional circumstances existed to attract principle of common intention and requiring further probe

Bail was granted accordingly.

Prosecution case was that accused-appellants armed with deadly weapons, made firing upon the son and nephew of complainant, due to which both died

Motive behind the occurrence was old enmity between the parties

Record showed that out of nine, one accused had allegedly instigated the other accused, two accused were alleged to have fired at the deceased persons, other accused persons were just present there

No evidence was led in trial to establish common intention of the accused

Circumstances established that common intention of the accused persons for committing the offence was not proved.

Mere presence of the petitioner had been shown in the supplementary statement, as such question of sharing common intention by the petitioner with the co-accused would be determined after recording pro and contra evidence at trial

Nothing had been recovered from the petitioner

Case of the petitioner required further inquiry

Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, negligent act as to endanger human life, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Common intention

Scope

Record showed that case of co-accused was quite distinguishable from the case of accused and other co-accused

First Information Report showed that said co-accused had made aerial firing

Eye-witnesses had stated at trial that said co-accused had made aerial firing

Except role of aerial firing by co-accused, no overt act/firing on the deceased had been attributed to him

Prosecution could not bring on record any evidence to the effect that said co-accused had shared common intention with the main accused persons

No evidence was available to show that said co-accused facilitated the main accused persons in the commission of offence

False implication of co-accused in the case due to his relationship with the main accused persons and background of enmity, could not be ruled out

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove the vicarious liability of the co-accused-appellant in the commission of double murder case, hence the case against him regarding his involvement appeared to be doubtful, benefit of which would resolve in his favour

Co-accused was acquitted by setting aside his conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court.

Question of vicarious liability or sharing common intention was to be determined after recording pro and contra evidence at trial.

All that is necessary is either to have direct proof or prior concert, or proof of circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference, or the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation of any other reasonable hypothesis.