Fact of the case :

In August 1923, Barendra Kumar Ghose and his partner decided to go to the post office to commit an offence, where Barendra Kumar Ghose stood outside the post office and the remaining three partners went inside the post office to commit the offence. When all three partners entered the post office, the postmaster named Amrit Lal was counting money. At that time, they pointed a gun at the postmaster and demanded money.

Amrit Lal Rao denied giving them the money, but when he refused, they shot him and tried to run away.  After this incident, Barendra Kumar Ghose also fired a gun and tried to escape from the place. At the same time, when Barendra Kumar Ghose was trying to flee, the assistant of the post office caught him and then sent him to the police station. When he arrived at the police station, charges were brought against him.

The Trial Court held the accused guilty of offence Murder under Section 302 of IPC (103(1) of BNS) read with Common Intention under Section 34 of IPC as they were satisfied that the deceased was killed in ‘furtherance of the common intention of all’.

An appeal was filed before the High Court which adjudged the object of Section 34 and stated that the section does not create a new offence rather it uses the expression ‘criminal act’ and formulates a principle of liability. The High Court stated that when an act is done by several persons when all are principals in the doing of it, and it is immaterial whether they are principals in the first degree or principals in the second degree, no distinction between the two categories being recognized. The High Court convicted the accused person under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC (3(5) of BNS).

Issue Involved

Whether the appellant was guilty of murder in furtherance of his common intention

Held : There was an appeal before the privy council against conviction. Lord Sumner dismissed the appeal and held that even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes they also serve who only stand and wait.... Section 34 of IPC [Section 3(5) of BNS] deals with doing of a separate, similar or diverse act by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of all of them as if he had done that act himself Lord Sumner while deciding the matter said, ‘they also serve who stand and wait’.