SURESH AND ANR. versus STATE OF UP

Mere presence of accused at or near the scene, without other evidence of participation or common intention, cannot sustain conviction with the aid of Section 34; participation in crime in furtherance of common intention is essential, and the prosecution failed to prove that A-3 shared the common intention, justifying her acquittal.

Parties: Appellant: Suresh; Appellant: Ramji; Respondent: Pavitri Devi; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 02 March 2001
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; acquittal of A-3 (Pavitri Devi) upheld; conviction and death sentence of A-1 (Suresh) and A-2 (Ramji) confirmed.
Legal Topics: Section 34 IPC Common Intention, Murder, Vicarious Liability

Criminal Law Section 34 IPC Common Intention Murder Vicarious Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Suresh

Appellant

Ramji

Appellant

Pavitri Devi

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Applicability of Section 34 IPC to conviction for murder where one accused was merely present at the scene
2 Whether mere presence at scene of crime is sufficient to infer common intention under Section 34
3 Distinction between common intention and similar intention under Section 34

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; acquittal of A-3 (Pavitri Devi) upheld; conviction and death sentence of A-1 (Suresh) and A-2 (Ramji) confirmed.

Orders

Appeal of State against acquittal of A-3 dismissed.
Appeals of A-1 and A-2 seeking to set aside death penalty dismissed.