When section 34 is applied, whether all the accused should be sentenced to the same sentence

Consider a case wherein 3 accused held a person and the 4^th accused attacked person with a knife / sickle and the person subsequently dies.

The accused are charged with section 302 ( Punishment For Murder) and section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of Common Intention) of Indian Penal Code 1860.

In such a scenario whether all the accused are liable for the offence of murder or only the accused who attacked the person with the weapon is liable for of the offence of murder.

Now in this case, the accused

Civil cases in India can take a long time to be decided however, there are certain steps that the litigants / lawyers can take to expedite the proceedings / decisions in civil cases.

1. Ensure that the summons are delivered without any delay. This may require some effort on the part of the litigant / lawyer (like payment of process fee, filling / preparation of summons, follow up with the dispatch staff etc.) but it is important that the process is completed without delay. Serving of summons through process servers appointed by court (if applicable) is generally faster than summons served through post.

2. If an application for substituted service on any party / defendant (other side ) needs to be filed, ensure that it is filed promptly and without any delay.

3. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908( Hereinafter CPC) provides for a time period of 30 days for filing of written statement by the other side (defendants) which can be extended up to 90 days by recording of reasons in writing. An application for closing the right of the defendants ought to be filed promptly if the defendant fails to file the written statement with the aforesaid period of 30 days.

4. If the defendant has failed to file the written statement with the time allowed or if his right to file written statement has been closed, an application under Order 8 rule 10 for pronouncing the judgment against the defendant ought to be filed promptly.

5. Adjournments ought to be strongly opposed and a request ought to be made to the Court to follow /comply with the provisions of Order 17 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

6. When trial starts, move an application for day to day trial as envisaged in clause (a) of the proviso to Order 17 Rule 2 of CPC which has been reproduced below:

“ (a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary.”

7. The Supreme Court in the case titled Yashpal Jain Versus Sushila Devi & Others ( Civil Appeal No 4296 / 2023) has passed detailed directions ( Para 2 of the order On page 48 of the judgment) for expeditious / disposal of civil cases. If any of these directions are not complied with by the trail courts, the aggrieved party may file a petition before the respective High Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India praying for directions to the trail court to comply with the directions passed the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.