Maina Singh v State of Rajasthan (1976)

Common intention (s. 3(5), Unit 2) is Unit 9's companion doctrine, and Maina Singh draws its arithmetic boundary: you cannot convict a lone remaining accused "with the aid of" a joint-liability rule once every other named participant has been acquitted and no unnamed participant is found. It is the defence-side counterpart to Mizaji and Barendra Kumar Ghosh.

Maina Singh and four others (his three sons and one Narain Singh) were tried for the murder of Amar Singh — relations were strained because Maina Singh suspected the deceased of informing on his smuggling. The deceased died of firearm, blunt and sharp-weapon injuries. The firearm and blunt-weapon injuries were assigned to Maina Singh; the other four accused were all acquitted. The prosecution had named only these five and led evidence confined to them. The High Court nonetheless upheld Maina Singh's conviction under s. 302/34.

Whether an accused can be convicted with the aid of s. 34 (common intention) when all the other named participants have been acquitted and the charge and evidence were confined to those named.

Conviction under s. 302/34 set aside; Maina Singh convicted only of what he did in his individual capacity. Where the prosecution names specific persons as sharing the common intention and confines its evidence to them, and all of them except one are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted with the aid of s. 34 by reference to the participation of the acquitted persons — unless there is a finding that some other, unnamed person shared the act. The Court applied the same logic the cases had settled for s. 149 (unlawful assembly): if the charge and evidence are confined to named persons and acquittals leave fewer than the doctrine requires, the constructive-liability provision cannot be invoked. On the facts, since the injuries attributable to Maina Singh were themselves grave, he was liable for those in his individual capacity.

Constructive liability needs a plurality that survives the verdict. Where all co-accused sharing the alleged common intention are acquitted and no unnamed participant is found to have taken part, the surviving accused answers only for the acts personally attributable to him — s. 34 cannot manufacture the missing participants.

Common intention is s. 3(5) and murder s. 103(1). The principle is unchanged, and it is the mirror of the unlawful-assembly rule (s. 190, Unit 9): where acquittals leave fewer than five identified members and no unnamed members are found, s. 190 cannot be used either. Cite Maina Singh with Mizaji v State of UP — Mizaji shows the doctrine's reach (liability for the known-likely by-product), Maina Singh its limit (no invented participants).