What is Section 34 IPC about?

Section 34 IPC creates joint liability when several persons act with a common intention and a criminal act is done in furtherance of that intention.

Why were all accused treated as liable here?

Because their presence, roles, and coordinated conduct showed a shared plan. The fatal blow by one was in furtherance of their common intention.

Does everyone need to strike a blow for Section 34 to apply?

No. Participation can be by presence, guarding, or aiding when these acts support the common intention to commit the crime.

What did the Court say about timing of intention?

Common intention may form on the spot. It can develop at the scene if the facts show conscious and concerted action.

How is Section 34 different from Section 149 IPC?

Section 34 needs a meeting of minds among a few persons. Section 149 concerns an unlawful assembly of five or more with a common object.

Rishi Deo Pandey And Others v. State of UP And Ors. (1955)

```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court explained how Section 34 IPC works. When people act together with a shared plan, one person’s blow can make all liable.

Here, one accused used a gandasa to kill the victim. The others stood by and enabled the attack. The Court read their conduct as common intention.

So, liability under 302 read with 34 attached to all, not just the actual striker.

Issues

Are companions of the main assailant liable for murder under Section 34 IPC when the killing is a joint act?

Rules

Section 34 IPC

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, each is liable as if they did it alone.

Section 302 IPC

Punishes murder. Read with Section 34 to attach joint liability to all who acted with the shared plan.

Common intention can be formed on the spot if conduct shows a conscious, concerted action.

Facts (Timeline)

Night of Incident

Victim Sheomurat was asleep on a cot. Rishideo and Ram Lochan stood near him; Banslochan guarded the door.

Fatal Blow

Ram Lochan, armed with a gandasa, struck the neck. Medical evidence confirmed a fatal incised wound; no lathi marks.

Flight

Both brothers fled together and were seen running from the room.

Proceedings

After CrPC Sections 87–88 steps, they surrendered. Trial court convicted all under 302/34; death sentences sent for confirmation.

High Court

Appeals of Ram Lochan and Banslochan dismissed. Present appeal proceeded only for Rishideo.

Arguments

Appellant (Rishideo)

He did not deliver any blow; only present with a lathi.
No medical sign of lathi injury; hence no role in murder.
Common intention not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

State

All three coordinated—weapon ready, door guarded, joint escape.
Presence was not passive; it aided the killing.
Common intention formed at scene; Section 34 applies.

Judgment

The Court upheld the joint liability. Even though Ram Lochan struck the fatal blow, the others’ roles showed a shared plan.

Weapon carriage and guarding show preparation and support.
Joint flight points to concert.
Therefore, 302 read with 34 IPC sustained against all.

Common intention here was inferred from conduct before, during, and after the attack.

Ratio Decidendi

Where accused act in a coordinated way—armed entry, guarding, and quick escape—the law infers a meeting of minds. In such cases, Section 34 fastens the murder liability on each participant.

Why It Matters

Clarifies that not every participant must inflict injury.
Helps courts read conduct as proof of shared plan.
Strengthens accountability for group crimes.

Key Takeaways

Common intention can form at the spot.

Guarding or aiding can fix liability under Section 34.

One fatal act can be shared by all partners-in-crime.

302/34 is proper where concerted action is proved.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ACT TOGETHER, ALL ANSWER”

ACT: One act can be shared by all.
TOGETHER: Presence + roles show a plan.
ALL ANSWER: Each is liable under 34.

3-Step Hook:

Identify concerted movement or roles.
Link acts to a common plan.
Apply 302/34 to all participants.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Do companions share murder liability when only one strikes but all act with a shared plan?

Rule

Section 34 IPC—joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

Application

Armed entry, guarding, and joint flight show a planned attack; intention formed and shared.

Conclusion

Yes. 302 read with 34 made out for all participants.

Glossary

Common Intention: A shared plan or meeting of minds to commit a crime.
Vicarious Liability: Liability for the act of another due to joint intention or relationship.
Gandasa: A sharp, heavy cutting weapon used to deliver the fatal blow.

FAQs

Armed presence, guarding the door, and quick escape together—these show a shared plan.

No. Section 34 does not need separate injuries by each person if the act is joint in purpose.

Yes. It may arise at the scene if actions show conscious cooperation.

Mere presence is not enough. But guarding or aiding can prove active participation in the shared plan.

State facts, define Section 34, show conduct proving concert, apply to 302/34, and conclude joint liability.

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Rishi Deo Pandey And Others v. State of UP And Ors. (1955)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 34 IPC, Common Intention, Vicarious Liability, Section 302 IPC
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Gandasa, Lathi, CrPC 87–88, Group Liability, Supreme Court of India
PUBLISH_DATE: 06-Jan-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: rishi-deo-pandey-and-others-v-state-of-up-and-ors-1955