https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311403 Section 34 IPC requires criminal participation in furtherance of a shared common intention; mere presence near the scene, without proof of any act linked to the offence or proof of shared intention, is insufficient to fasten liability. On the facts, the co-accused's acquittal was upheld because the evidence did not show participation in the murders. The Court also applied the rarest of rare standard to affirm the death sentence for the principal assailants, finding the brutality of the killings and the extermination of an entire family outweighed any mitigating factors. A concurring opinion agreed with the result but stated that overt acts are not invariably required if common intention and participation are otherwise proved. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311403 Section 34 IPC requires criminal participation in furtherance of a shared common intention; mere presence near the scene, without proof of any act linked to the offence or proof of shared intention, is insufficient to fasten liability. On the facts, the co-accused's acquittal was upheld because the evidence did not show participation in the murders. The Court also applied the rarest of rare standard to affirm the death sentence for the principal assailants, finding the brutality of the killings and the extermination of an entire family outweighed any mitigating factors. A concurring opinion agreed with the result but stated that overt acts are not invariably required if common intention and participation are otherwise proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311403