The Legal Issue
The Delhi High Court addressed the critical legal question of whether mere participation in a protest is sufficient to establish 'common intention' under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (or Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), particularly in cases involving obstruction of public servants (Sections 186 and 353 IPC, or Sections 200 and 202 BNS). The core issue revolved around the evidentiary threshold required to link an individual present at a protest to specific criminal acts committed by others during the same event, without proving their direct involvement or a pre-arranged plan.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Amit Sharma, presiding over the Delhi High Court, clarified that Section 34 of the IPC (or Section 45 BNS) mandates more than mere presence or proximity to the scene of a crime. The Court emphasized that for common intention to be established, there must be a 'pre-arranged plan' or a 'meeting of minds' among the accused. It held that simply being part of a large gathering, even if some members commit an offence, does not automatically impute common intention to all participants. The prosecution must adduce specific evidence demonstrating the individual's active participation in the criminal act or their shared intent to commit it. The Court underscored that individual culpability cannot be presumed solely based on collective presence at a protest.
Why It Matters
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal liability is individual and cannot be based on guilt by association. For advocates, it provides a strong basis to challenge charges under Section 34 IPC (or Section 45 BNS) where the prosecution fails to prove specific overt acts or a pre-arranged plan linking the accused to the alleged offence during a protest. Litigants facing such charges can rely on this precedent to argue that their mere presence at a demonstration does not constitute common intention to commit a crime. This decision will likely raise the bar for prosecuting individuals involved in protests, requiring law enforcement to gather more specific evidence of individual roles and shared intent rather than relying on general participation. Counsel should confirm whether the IPC/CrPC or BNS/BNSS applies based on the offence date and proceeding type.