Barendra Kumar Ghose v. King Emperor
AIR 1925 PC 1
[Common Intention under Criminal Law]
Facts
The accused, along with three others, went to a post office to commit robbery armed with guns. One of them stood watch at the door for law enforcement while the other three went inside to demand money. On being refused and verbally abused by the postmaster, all three fired their weapon, one bullet from which took the life of the victim. The accused fired multiple shots while escaping and were eventually caught.
Issue
Is the murder done in furtherance of a common intent?
Are all four liable for the murder?
What is Sec. 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita says?
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
This provision defines the common intention which itself is not a criminal act but is an explanation to understand when two or more persons would be held liable for an offence in furtherance of a common intent.
Judgement
Supreme Court held that the murder was done in furtherance of the common intention, and each one of them had this common intent to commit murder, making all four of them liable. It is immaterial that the person standing watch on the door did not shoot since he had the requisite criminal knowledge and intent to try him for the offence of murder. Therefore, all of them were held liable for the murder as well as the robbery.
Check more case briefs on common intention- Bhagwan Tukaram V State of maharasthra.
Comments