The Delhi High Court observed that merely standing guard or omitting to act when someone else commits an offence in furtherance of their common intention would be sufficient to attract liability under Section 34 IPC. However, the common intention, as well as some participation, both need to be proved.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed, “Every person charged for an offence by invoking Section 34 IPC must participate in some form or other in the offence to make him liable. Giving the actual blow or even physical presence on the spot is not necessary. Merely standing guard or omitting to act when someone else commits an offence in furtherance of their common intention would be sufficient to attract liability under Section 34 IPC.”

Advocate Kumar Gaurav Vimal represented the Petitioner, Advocate Shubhi Gupta represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Appellants were convicted for the offence of Sections 325/34 IPC as they started quarrelling with the complainant, who were fruit sellers. During the quarrel, a juvenile hit on the head of one of the complainants due to which he started bleeding from his head.

It was contended by the Appellants that t neither the weapon of offence was recovered, nor any specific role has been attributed to the appellants and further that there was no common intention to attract Section 34 of the IPC.

Court’s Observation

The Court noted that the Section 34 IPC lays down a scenario wherein a person is held to be vicariously liable for the act of others.

“However, before this liability arises, there are two requirements of the Section which need to be met. Firstly, there must exist a common intention i.e., some pre-arranged plan. Secondly, the person sought to be held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence”, the Court said.

The High Court noted that since it was difficult to prove common intention by direct evidence, it has to be inferred from the conduct of the accused, evidence and documents on record and other relevant circumstances.

Later, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined, “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the existence of a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant and moreover they failed to detail any act, overt or covert, which helped in furtherance of any such common intention, even if it is presumed to have existed.”

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

Cause Title: Ashok Babu V. State of Government of NCT Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7506)

Click here to read/download Judgement


Delhi High CourtJustice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.