Brief Facts:
This case comes under the ambit of Joint liability. It is one of the landmark cases that explains the principle of joint liability. Allahdad, the deceased, along with some people left his village on a boat to go and collect reeds on the bank of the Indus river. When they had traveled about a mile down the river they saw Mohammad Hussain Shah. At the time he was bathing on the bank of the river. He warned Allahadad and his companions against collected reeds as the area belonged to him. Allahdad ignored his warnings and collected the reeds from the land.

On their journey back with the collection of reeds were intercepted by Mohammad Hussain Shah's nephew Ghulan Quasim Shah, who asked them to return the bundle of reeds. The group refused to do so. Gulam Quasim Shah grabbed the rope of the boat; he then grabbed Allahdad and pushed him. He gave him a blow with a stick which Allahdad successfully warded off. Allahdad in retaliation then struck Ghulan Quasim Shah with a bamboo stick.

Wali Shah and Mahboob Shah came to the rescue of Quasim Shah with guns in hand when he shouted for help. On seeing them, Allahdad along with his friend Hamidullah tried to run away, but they were stopped by Wali Shah and Mahboob Shah. Wali Shah fired a shot at Hamidullah who died on the spot. Mahboob Shah fired at Allahdad causing him injuries. Wali Shah made arun for it and was not apprehended. Mahboob Shah and Quasim Shah were tried with section 302 read with section 34 IPC.

Issues Raised:
The lawsuit focused on two main issues:

• Whether Mahboob Shah (Appellant) and Wali Shah planned to murder Allahdad.
• If there is a distinction between same and shared purpose.

Arguments:

• By Petitioner
  In Mahboob Shah v. Emperor the petitioner was charged with sec 34 of IPC (sec 3(5) BNS) . The petitioner challenged this section.
  
  Petitioner contended that there is no proof of any pre-arranged plan between him and the other accused Wali Shah. He said that mere physical presence of both the accused at the time of commission of the offense does not fulfill the requirement for the application of sec 34 IPC. There is no concrete evidence that there was any prior meeting of the minds. The accused contested that their case does not fulfill the legal requirement for the application of Sec 34 IPC.
   
• By Defendant
  The defendant i.e. the crown contended that both Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah had common intention. Even if the shot was fired by one, according to the principle of joint liability the other would still be liable. The defendant argued that even if there was no direct verbal evidence of any preconceived plan or prior meeting of the minds. Their actions prove that they were working towards the same desired goal. The prosecution relied on the idea of constructive culpability under Section 34 IPC, which states that when numerous persons commit a criminal conduct in the name of a common aim, each of them is held guilty as if they had committed the crime individually.

Judgement
The Court established the following principles in this case:

• Under section 34 of the Penal Code, the essence of liability is found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused, leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
• To successfully invoke the aid of section 34, it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention.
• Common purpose, as defined in Section 34, entails a pre-arranged scheme, and to convict the accused of an offense using the section, it must be proven that the illegal act was committed in accordance with a determined or prearranged plan.
• It is difficult, if not impossible, to get direct evidence to show an individual's purpose; in most situations, it must be inferred from his act or conduct or other pertinent facts of the case.
• Care must be given not to mistake identical or similar purpose with common intention; the partition that divides "their bounds" is sometimes extremely thin; yet, the distinction is genuine and fundamental, and if ignored, would result in a miscarriage of justice.
• The inference of common intention within the sense of the word under section 34 (sec 3(5) BNS) shall never be drawn unless it is a necessary conclusion based on the facts of the case.

In the current instance, there was no evidence or circumstances to suggest that Mahboob Shah, the appellant, acted in concert with Wali Shah in accordance of a predetermined plan when the former and the latter went to the rescue of Ghulam Quasim. The two had the same intention, namely to rescue Quasim Shah if necessary by using guns, and that in carrying out this intention, Mahboob Shah chose Hamidullah and Wali Shah, the deceased (i.e. Allahdad) for dealing, but there was no evidence of a common intention to commit the criminal act complained against in furtherance of the common intention, so there was no case for convicting the appellant for murder. There was no proof that appellant and Wali Shah conspired to murder Allahdad in order to save Quasim Shah.

Conclusion
At the time, the Privy Council was effective in differentiating between same or similar purpose and common intention. Their primary goal was to draw clear distinctions between the two to prevent misunderstandings and unjust judgments. There is no common intention unless there is prior meeting among the people involved.A prior meeting of the minds is a prerequisite for applying section 3(5) BNS. To this day, the privy council's tenets remain in effect.

Also Read:

• Joint Responsibility in Crime
• Joint And Constructive Criminal Liability
• Mahboob Shah vs Emperor And Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
• Analysis of Intricacies of Common Intention Under Indian Penal Code
• Common Intention Under IPC Section 34 And BNS Section 3(5)
• General principles of criminal liability: mens rea and actus reus, mens rea in statutory offences, Joint And Constructive Liability