Makhan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1988
Mahboob Shah vs Emperor (1945 PC 118, Privy Council)
Facts of the Case
In this case, a dispute arose between two families regarding a right of way over land.
During the quarrel, the accused Mahboob Shah and others attacked the complainant’s party with firearms.
One person was killed and others were injured.
The issue was whether all the accused could be held liable for murder under Section 34 IPC (common intention).
Legal Issue
Whether the accused shared a common intention to commit murder so that Section 34 IPC could be applied?
Or was it only a case of similar intention, where each accused should be held liable only for his own acts?
Judgment (Privy Council)
The Privy Council acquitted some of the accused and clarified the scope of Section 34 IPC.
It laid down the doctrine of common intention in Indian criminal law.
Principle Laid Down
Common Intention under Section 34 IPC:
Requires a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds.
The criminal act must be done in furtherance of the common intention.
Similar Intention ≠ Common Intention:
Merely because two persons have the same intention to commit a crime does not mean they acted in common intention.
Example: If two persons independently attack the same person at the same time, it is similar intention, not common intention, unless it is proved that they had a prior meeting of minds.
Participation in Crime:
Physical participation is not always necessary (a person may be present and abet), but the mental participation must be clear.
Importance of the Case
This case is a leading authority on Section 34 IPC.
It clearly distinguished between similar intention and common intention.
Relevant Case Laws Following Mahboob Shah
Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia vs State of Hyderabad (AIR 1955 SC 216)
The Supreme Court reiterated that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan.
It cannot be confused with same intention.
Kripal Singh vs State of U.P. (AIR 1954 SC 706)
Court held that common intention can develop on the spot, but there must still be a clear meeting of minds.
Virendra Singh vs State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 407
Reaffirmed that mere presence at the scene of offence does not prove common intention unless active participation or prior agreement is shown.
Suresh vs State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 673
The court emphasized that to attract Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Mahboob Shah vs Emperor (1945, PC) |
| Provision Involved | Section 34 IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention |
| Key Issue | Distinction between similar intention and common intention |
| Principle Laid Down | Common intention requires pre-arranged plan and meeting of minds; not the same as similar intention |
| Outcome | Not all accused held liable – only those proven to share common intention |
| Importance | Landmark case on interpretation of Section 34 IPC |
RELATED Blog
0 comments