RISHIDEO PANDE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and his brother Ram Lochan Pandey and one Banslochan were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur on 25-2-1954 under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C., for having murdered one Sheomurat and each of them was sentenced to death subject to confirmation by the High Court There was an appeal to the High Court by all the three accused and there was a reference made by the learned sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court gave Banslochan the benefit of doubt and rejected the reference and allowed the appeal so far as it concerned him. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal so far as it concerned Ram Lochan and the appellant and accepted the reference and confirmed their conviction and the sentence passed on them. The present appeal is by Rishideo alone.

(2.) The main point urged by Sri Umrigar who appears in support of this appeal is that S. 34, I. P. C., has been wrongly applied to the facts of this case. The meaning, scope and effect of S. 34 have been explained on more than one occasion by the Privy Council and by this Court. It will suffice only to refer to the last decision of this Court in the case of - 'Pandurang vs. The State of Hyderabad'. (1955) SCR 1083 pronounced on 1954. It. is now well settled that the intention referred to in S. 34 presupposes a prior concert a pre-arranged plan, i.e., a meeting of minds. This does not mean there must be a long interval of time the formation of the common intention the doing of the act. It is not necessary adduce direct evidence of the common intention. Indeed, in many cases it may be impossible to do so. The common intention may be inferred from the surrounding and the conduct of the parties. Sri Umrigar submits that there is nothing on the record from which a common intention on the part of Ram Lochan and the appellant to murder Sheomurat can be properly inferred.

(3.) There is now no dispute as to the following facts, namely-