To Incur Joint Liability for an Offence There Should Not be a Long Interval Between the Act or Pre-meditation and the Plan may be Formed Suddenly: Allahabad HC 

The bench stated that it is by now well settled that principles of joint liability in committing an offence is contemplated under section 34 IPC. The factum of joint liability in committing the offence is dependent upon the existence of common intention pursuant to which three accused acted in furtherance of their common intention.

High Court opined that in order to incur joint liability for an offence there need not be a long interval between the act or pre-meditation and the plan may be formed suddenly. Section 34 IPC would be attracted in the facts of the case and each of the accused would be held liable for an offence under section 302 IPC.

The bench observed that “there existed no premeditation; it was a sudden fight; the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, therefore, the case in hand clearly falls under the fourth exception to section 300 IPC. The accused-appellants are accordingly sentenced to ten years imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC, by substituting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them under Section 302 IPC.”

High Court after considering the fact that Accused  Firoz has already undergone incarceration of nearly 25 years, released him from jail. 

In view of the above, the bench partly allowed the appeal. 

Case Title: Salim @ Pappu v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shanker Prasad

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 6666 of 2008

Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now