The Supreme Court in regard to Section 34 (Section 2 BNS) of Indian Penal Code observed that the existence of a common intention among the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this section. It is not necessary that the act of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. In which of the following case the above observation was made by the Supreme Court?

Correct option is A

In Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential element for joint liability is "common intention." It is not necessary that all participants perform identical acts; what is crucial is that they share a common intention to commit the offence and actively participate in its execution, even if in varying degrees.
​
Information Booster:
Section 34 IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It is a rule of constructive liability that makes all participants equally liable for the offence.
​
Additional Information:
Common intention under Section 34 must be proved either through direct evidence or inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.