Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Common Intention’ Standard in Criminal Cases, Emphasizes Need for Pre-planned Action

Last Updated on February 3, 2025 by Amit Patra

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has underlined the fact that mere presence at the scene of crime does not amount to common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while again underlining protection against collective punishment. The court allowed appeals by police constables against their conviction for murder, flagging the vital need to establish “prior meetings of minds” for charges of common intention.
The case arose from a tragic incident in which a head constable, in an attempt to stop a suspected liquor smuggling vehicle, fired a fatal shot that killed a passenger. While the trial court convicted only the head constable who fired the shot, the High Court extended the conviction to other constables present at the scene. This distinction in judicial interpretation brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, referring to precedents in this regard, including the recent Madhusudan case, laid down the law thus: the prosecution has to prove that all the accused not only pre-planned but also shared a common intention to commit the crime. The Court held that the High Court’s reasoning—that mere presence in the same car was enough to infer a common intention—is legally unsound. ***.

Especially noteworthy was the reaffirmation by the Court of the limited scope for appellate courts to overturn acquittals. The bench, referring to the case of Babu Sahebagouda, had laid down three specific circumstances where such interference would be warranted: patent perversity, omission of material evidence, or when guilt is the only reasonable conclusion from available evidence. ***.

The Court, however, found force in the reasoning of the trial court that the other constables were acting under the command of their senior officer and with only one witness identifying only one accused, the evidence was not sufficient to raise any nexus of criminal intent. This decision is an important reminder that criminal liability, particularly under Section 34 IPC, requires concrete proof of premeditation and shared purpose, not just association or presence.