Scribd
Upload
355 views2 pages

Mahbub Shah Vs Emperor

The appellant, Mahbub Shah, was convicted of murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for shooting and killing someone with co-accused Wali Shah. Section 34 makes a person liable for offenses committed by others if they share a common intention. The appellant argued there was no common intention or pre-arranged plan to kill. The court found no evidence of a common intention beyond helping their nephew, and set aside the appellant's murder conviction, finding he could only be liable for his own actions.

Uploaded by

Naman Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
355 views2 pages

Mahbub Shah Vs Emperor

The appellant, Mahbub Shah, was convicted of murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for shooting and killing someone with co-accused Wali Shah. Section 34 makes a person liable for offenses committed by others if they share a common intention. The appellant argued there was no common intention or pre-arranged plan to kill. The court found no evidence of a common intention beyond helping their nephew, and set aside the appellant's murder conviction, finding he could only be liable for his own actions.

Uploaded by

Naman Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GROUP LIABILITY

CASE- MAHBUB SHAH VS EMPEROR; AIR 1945 PC 118

Section 34 makes a person liable for the action of an offense not committed by him but by
another person with whom he shared the common intention. The section gives statutory
recognition to the common-sense principle that if more than two persons intentionally do a
thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually.

FACTS- The deceased and a few others were going to the Indus River in a boat to collect and
cut reeds on the bank of the river of the accused. When they had traveled a mile downstream,
they saw Mohammed Shah, the father of the accused Wali Shah bathing on the Bank of the
river. He warned them not to cut reeds from the land belonging to them. The deceased despite
this protest collected the reeds from that property. As they were returning with a bundle of
reeds their boat was noticed by Ghulam Shah, nephew of Mohammed Shah. He asked the
disease to hand over the reeds. On his refusal, a fight led between Ghulam Shah and the
deceased, on which Ghulam Shah called for help. On hearing this, Wali Shah and Mahbub
Shah came and both of them had guns. When the deceased and another person with him came
in front of them, Wali Shah shot at the deceased and Mahbub Shah shot the other person who
later survived. The appellant, Mahbub Shah was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge,
and thus, the appellant filed an appeal. Wali Shah absconded.

ISSUE- Whether the appellant can be convicted for murder read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code?

LAWS RELATED-
1. Section 34- As per this provision, when several persons engaged in a criminal act
with a common intention, each person is made liable as if he alone did the act.
ARGUMENTS-
APPELLANT-
 When they shot at the deceased and his companion, they did not have the intention of
killing any of the complainant parties.
 To make them liable under Section 34, it must be proved that the act was done in
concert under the pre-arranged plan.

COMPLAINANT
 The criminal act was done in concert under the pre-arranged plan, as when his
nephew called for help, they showed up with guns and were fully prepared.

CONCLUSION-
 In the present case, there was no evidence and there were no circumstances from
which it might be inferred that the appellant must have been acting in concert with Wali Shah
in pursuance of a pre-arranged plan when he along with rushed with him to the rescue his
nephew.
 It is possible to accept that the appellant-accused and Wali Shah had the same
intention i.e., to save their nephew but there is no evidence that their intention was to do the
criminal act.
 There was no common intention among the accused and therefore the appellant must
be held liable for the act which he himself did.
 The appellant’s conviction for murder is, accordingly, set aside.

SEE MORE
 Pandurang vs the State of Hyderabad
 Tukaram Ganpat vs the State of Maharashtra

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy