In a landmark judgment, India's Supreme Court recently ruled that the issue of "common intention" under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, or IPC, is left to be determined by the trial courts. The Court further elaborated that the common intention to commit a crime does not acquire any kind of fixed time frame from which the same is said to be formed. Moreover, meetings or conspiracies held with the accused prior to the commission of the crime are not a mandate for the formation of the common criminal intent. This judgment therefore greatly illuminates the provision on the interpretation of Section 34 IPC, dealing with liability in cases of joint criminal actions.History of Section 34 IPC It states that when an act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, then each of them is liable for the offense as if they themselves have done it individually. This is often called into play when there are many persons accused of a given offense, with one being primarily the perpetrator of such, while the other were only his accomplice or aide in such offense. The common intention issue under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is first, thereby determining "common intention" — existed and, if existed, whether all of the accused had it. Indeed, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court addresses these questions: "determinations of existence of common intention require a close reading of facts to be undertaken at the trial court itself". Judgment of the Court The Supreme Court held that it is better for trial courts to have determined rather than the High Courts, whether there has been or not an existing common intention between co-accused individuals. It is because only trial courts are the direct examinees of the evidence, hearing of the witnesses, and scrutinizing circumstances relating to the commission of a crime. The High Court, often dealing with appeals founded on points of law or technical error, cannot have the same capacity to weigh these factual considerations, at any rate not in the first instance without direct exposure to the whole process of trial. Held that the common intention under Section 34, IPC cannot be taken to be such that it can never form within a specified timeframe. It is not a necessity that common intention needs to be preceded by elaborate or protracted planning. It can arise spontaneously, even at the spontaneity of the situation, and it is no necessity for common intention to be preceded by meetings or discussions of the co-accused with each other to commit the crime. This judgment has tremendous ramifications for criminal justice administration in India. The Supreme Court holds that the evaluation of common intent is essentially a fact-finding process, which enables the trial courts to appraise criminal responsibility as best they know it in perceiving the case at close quarters.