Does it create substantive offence-Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act – Held that Section 34 is not a substantive offence. Before a person can be held responsible under this section, it must be established that there was a common intention and the person being sought to be held liable must have participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. The common intention shared by the accused should be anterior in time to the commission of offence but may develop on the spot when the crime is committed ( Virendra Singh v. State of M.P.- (2010) 8 SCC 893).
The circumstantial evidence in the case does not clearly indicate that the appellant-accused had a common intention with the main accused to kill the deceased. The sole allegation against the appellant-accused is that he inflicted an injury on the head of the father of the deceased, by using an aruval. It is clear from the records that there is no allegation by the prosecution or any statement by the two eyewitnesses regarding the infliction of any injury by the appellant-accused on the deceased. Thus the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC deserves to be set aside as the same is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2020) 5 SCC 160- Chellappa v. State through the Inspector of Police