Question: A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention case law, if any, on the point. Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A… Read More »

Question: A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention case law, if any, on the point. Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention...

Question: A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention case law, if any, on the point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention case law, if any, on the point.]

Answer

No, A and B cannot be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Supreme Court in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, 1955 SCR 1083 has observed that for application of section 34, there must be a pre-arranged plan or prior concert or meeting of minds between the offenders to commit a punishable act in furtherance of that common intention.

The first leading case on the point is Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1. In this case, several persons appeared before the sub-postmaster who was counting the money on the table and demanded the money. In the meantime, they opened fire killed the sub-postmaster, and ran away without taking any money. Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed over to the police.

The accused was tried under Sections 302/34 as according to the prosecution he was one of the three men who fired at the sub-postmaster. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased. The court, on being satisfied that the sub-postmaster was killed in furtherance of the common intention of all, convicted the accused even if he had not fired the fatal shot.

Further, In Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555, two groups of people clashed over land. The accused side was armed with weapons. Two accused were convicted under section 302 read with section 34, IPC the SC, after considering the evidence, held that prior concert or meeting of minds may be determined from the conduct of offenders unfolding itself and by declarations made by them. On this ground, the two accused who merely held the deceased were held not to have shared the common intention and hence were acquitted.

Hence, since in the present case, A and B had no prior meeting of minds section doesn’t apply in their conviction of murder.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-06-29T05:36:48+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story