Solution

The judgment passed by the Privy Council in Mahboob Shah vs. Emperor case, became a landmark judgment as it differentiated between common intention and same intention. The judgment even in today's era is relevant and also of great importance. Kripal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: The learned Sessions Judge did not hold Appellant guilty u/s 307, I.P.C. on the finding that there was nothing on record to show that he had any intention or knowledge to kill Smt. Shanti Devi or that there was any common intention of any of the accused to do so. It may be voluntarily causing hurt.... So, the circumstances for an offence u/s 307, I.P.C. are not made out from the evidence on record. This is a simple case u/s 323, I.P.C. for which no common intention could be attributed to the other three accused besides Vijay Pal Singh. It is an offence committed by Vijay Pal Singh u/s 323, I.P.C. only. Jumman v. State of Punjab: It is clear that there was no pre-meditation and therefore when the contending factions met accidentally and attacked each other, the conflict resulted in a sudden fight, in the heat of passions, upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. On the finding that both the parties had arms, there was no undue advantage taken by either. Hence Exception 4to Section 300, I.P.C., applies with the result that the offence is Under Section 304 (part 1), I. P.C. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor: Lord Sumner dismissed the appeal against the conviction and held that – “criminal acts means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be responsible, if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in criminal offence.”