 On the night of 5-10-1996 brother of the

appellant went to sleep with his wife and

children
 Attacked by armed assailants post midnight
 Whole family hacked to pieces
 Tiny tot alive
 Sole survivor
 Narrated tale of carnage before Sessions
court
 Horrible injuries inflicted on victims
 Motive-Piece of land adjacent to the house
compound of the deceased which was
claimed by Suresh-Appellant 1 but deceased
Ramesh clung to it and it resulted in
burgeoning animosity in the mind of Suresh
 Division Bench of High court accepted the
evidence of PW-3-Jitendra-seven years old to
the extent it secured corroboration form the
testimony of other witnesses
 Pavitra Devi present at scene of crime
 She did not inflict injuries but testimony of
Jitendra-Caught hold of his mother’s hair and
pulled her up and exhorted everybody
outside to kill her
 Counsel for State contended that such
presence was in furtherance of the common
intention of the three accused to commit the
murders and hence she can as well be
convicted for murders under Section 34 and
302 IPC.
 Act under Section 34 denotes single as well
as series of acts
 One criminal act composed of more than one
act can be committed by more than one
persons and if such commission is in
furtherance of the common intention of all of
them
 Each would be liable for the criminal act so
committed
 Section 34 is intended to meet a situation
wherein all the co-accused have also done
something to constitute the commission of
crime
 The criminal act (consisting of as series of
acts) should have been done not by one
person
 Doing of every such individual act
cumulatively resulting in the commission of
criminal offence should have been in
furtherance of the common intention of all
such persons
 FIR shows Pavitra Devi was standing on road
hen the incident happened
 She might have accompanies or followed her
husband and brother out of curiosity a to why
they are going armed with axe and choppers
 It is not a necessary conclusion that she too
would have accompanied the other accused in
furtherance of the common intention of all
the three
 Unable to hold that she shared common
intention with the other accused
 Her remaining passively on the road is too
insufficient for reversing the order of
acquittal passed by the High Court in order to
convict her with the aid of Section 34 IPC
 What is required under law is that the
accused persons sharing the common
intention must be physically present at the
scene of occurrence and be shown to not
have dissuaded themselves form the intended
criminal act for which they shared the
common intention