#common intention

The Delhi High Court reduced a murder conviction to grievous hurt, holding that common intention to murder under Section 34 IPC requires proof of a prior meeting of minds and cannot be inferred from mere presence or flight where the fatal blow was inflicted by an armed co-accused and no overt act was attributed to the appellant.

The ruling upholds charges against female petitioners in December 2023 to July 2024 incidents, clarifying that liability for gang rape under BNS Section 70 extends to those sharing the common intention to commit rape, even without commission of the act.

The Supreme Court held that armed participation in an unlawful assembly establishes common intention under Sections 34/149 IPC even without inflicting the fatal injury, restoring two convictions in a 2004 ambush murder. It also upheld the acquittal of a Section 319 CrPC summoned accused for lack of corroboration.

The Allahabad HC ruled that Section 34 IPC requires a functional link to the crime; mere presence or being armed is insufficient for common-intention liability. Accordingly, Harish Chandra was acquitted of murder. Prosecutors must now prove direct participation in joint offences.

Rajasthan High Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment in a brutal axe murder case, applying the rarest of rare doctrine. The ruling underscores the court's rigorous balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors under sentencing jurisprudence.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in an SC/ST Act case, ruling that a sudden quarrel without premeditated common intention reduces culpability under Section 3(5) BNS. The court distinguished between spontaneous altercations and planned offenses, impacting bail considerations in atrocity cases.

Allahabad High Court held that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intent to kill, downgrading the offence to Section 324 IPC where such intent was absent. The Court also granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing that first-time offenders may benefit from leniency after prolonged trial delays, provided no grave harm was caused.

Allahabad High Court rules that convicting an accused under both POCSO Act Section 6 and IPC Section 376(2)(i) for the same act of rape on a minor constitutes double punishment, violating legal principles. The court reduced the sentence to 14 years while affirming conviction under POCSO, setting a precedent for sentencing in similar cases.

Patna High Court sets aside rape conviction, ruling that mere presence or association without evidence of an overt act or shared intention cannot sustain liability under Sections 376/34 IPC. The judgment reinforces that vicarious criminal liability demands proof of active participation or pre-arranged plan, not just proximity to the crime.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to an accused in a fatal road dispute, holding that a spontaneous altercation without premeditation negates common intention under BNS, even when death results. This reinforces that bail is not automatically denied in homicide cases where the act arises from unpremeditated conflict, protecting those caught in volatile, non-conspiratorial confrontations.

The Jharkhand High Court acquits two accused under Section 307 IPC when medical evidence contradicted the victim’s claim of stone assault, holding that Section 34 cannot extend collective liability without proof of active, intentional involvement. This ruling sharpens the threshold for common intention in violent offenses, protecting bystanders from vicarious criminal liability.

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against three accused, emphasizing that hearsay evidence without direct allegations or involvement in the complaint cannot sustain charges. The ruling reinforces that charge sheets must be grounded in substantive evidence, not mere witness statements relaying second-hand information.

Allahabad HC alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC, citing sudden provocation in a fruit cart dispute. The ruling reduces the sentence to time already served, emphasizing proportionality in sentencing where intent to kill is mitigated by immediate provocation.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that mere presence or post-facto assistance is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 34 IPC without establishing prior concert or pre-meditation. The court emphasized that forensic contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence vitiate the prosecution's case, reinforcing the need for strict proof of shared criminal intent.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention, acquitting co-accused when only one fatal injury is attributed to a single assailant. The judgment reinforces that mere presence or minor injuries do not establish shared criminal intent.