1. WHETHER MS.

AMRAPALI RATHORE IS LIABLE FOR THE CHARGES

IMPOSED ON HER.

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (here in after IPC) read as - Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention — When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done
by him alone.1
Section 34 attracts where several persons done some criminal act in furtherance of common
intention and it is difficult to differentiate between the acts of individuals. That’s why each and
every individual who has done the act in furtherance of common intention is liable, even if the
particular act in question was not performed by the one or the other member of the group.
THREE MAIN INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 34:
• A criminal act must be done by several persons;
• The criminal act must be to further the common intention of all, and;
• There must be participation of All persons in furthering the common the common intention.2
These three are the essentials, which have to be proved in order to attract sec. 34 of IPC. There
must be a criminal act done by several persons. And that act must be to further the common
intention of all. And every member of the group charged with the aid of section 34 must
participate in the criminal act.3
The case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor 4 is one of the landmark judgments. In
this case the appeal was before privy council, and it was held that
“Section 34 with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons if all are done
in furtherance of common intention, which person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had
done them himself; for ‘that act’ and ‘the act’ in the latter part of the section must include the
whole action covered by a criminal act in the first part, because they refer to it... in other words,
‘criminal act’ means that unity of criminal behavior which results in something for which an
individual would be responsible, if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in a criminal
offence.”5

1
Section 34 of IPC
2
Parichat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 535
3
Shyam Lal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3339
4
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1
5
ibid
In the present case, Ms. Amrapali Rathore is the Culprit as she is the one who planned the
dacoity, and her intention was to threaten Ms. Bansuri as she considered Ms. Bansuri her
competitor in Business the whole plan resulted in death of Ms. Bansuri. It is clearly evident from
the facts that the death of Ms. Bansuri was happened due to the criminal act which was in
furtherance of common intention (Threatening). Therefore Ms. Amrapali Rathore along with the
masked men is also liable for murder of Ms. Bansuri as per section 300. She is also liable for
the Dacoity of jewelry as per sec. 391 of IPC.

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 120A OF IPC

Section 120A of IPC deal with criminal conspiracy that is an agreement between two or more
persons to commit an offence or carry out an illegal act by unlawful means. The main ingredient
of the section 120A of IPC are
• There should be two or more persons.
• There should be an agreement between themselves.
• Agreement must be to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
These ingredients were thoroughly discussed in the case of Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra 6
Proviso of section 120A are as following
1. In the case of conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is sufficient to
impose liability without the requirement that some over acting in furtherance of the
conspiracy should have been committed.
2. However, in the case of a conspiracy to do a legal act by illegal means there ought to be
some overs act which should have been committed by one or more parties to the
agreement, apart from the agreement itself.
In the present case Ms. Amrapali Rathore conspired for the criminal act which was Dacoity with
the seven masked and also conspired for the same criminal act with Raga Deva. And according
to the understanding of section 120A of IPC, mere agreement of doing any offense attracts the
section. Here it is clearly given in the facts that Ms. Amrapali Rathore made the agreement for
the offense of Dacoity and therefore she is liable for Criminal Conspiracy under section
120A.

6
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991
ABETMENT UNDER SECTION 107 OF IPC

Section 107 of IPC deals with Abetment.

Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a

material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Sub clause 3 of section 107 states that a person abets the doing of a thing who, intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The plain reading of section 107 sub
clause 3 with the Explanation 2 leads us to the understanding that any person who aids for the
commission of any act intentionally is said to be abetting that act. It is not enough that an act on
the part of alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Mere knowledge on
part of a person that his act would facilitate the commission of the offence also does not make
him an abettor.7
In the present case Ms. Amrapali Rathore provided the full information of the event, this was the
intentional aid provided to the seven masked men for the commission of offense. She also
provided guns which led to the murder of Ms. Bansuri. Providing guns to the seven masked men
also come in the ambit of intentional aid. Therefore, Ms. Amrapali Rathore should be held
liable for the abetment of the murder of Ms. Bansuri and for the abetment of Dacoity.

7
Shri Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 175