On August 24, 1943, a group led by Allahabad went to the banks of the Indus River to collect reeds, despite being warned by Mohammad Hussain Shah, the father of Wali Shah, that the land belonged to him. While returning, they were stopped by Ghulam Shah, who demanded the reeds back. When the group refused, a fight broke out during which Allahabad hit Ghulam with a bamboo stick. Ghulam called out for help, and in response, Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah arrived at the scene carrying loaded guns. As Allahabad and his group tried to escape, Wali Shah shot Hamidullah, killing him on the spot, and Mahboob Shah shot Allahabad, who later died from his injuries.
Issue before the Court
The main questions in this case were:
- Did Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah plan together beforehand to kill Allahdad?
- Is there a legal difference between having the same intention and having a common intention?
These questions were important because they help determine whether Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with joint criminal liability, should apply or not.
You can also read the Judgement of Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose Case.
For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].
Analysis of the Court
In the initial trial, the Sessions Court convicted Mahboob Shah and Ghulam Shah under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. Mahboob Shah was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, the Lahore High Court acquitted Ghulam Shah because he did not shoot anyone. But it sentenced Mahboob Shah to death, saying that he shared a common intention with Wali Shah, who actually fired the shot.
However, the Privy Council later reviewed the case and reached a different conclusion. It held that there was no evidence that Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah had any pre-planned agreement to murder Allahdad. According to the Privy Council, both may have had the same goal rescuing Ghulam Shah but they did not share a common intention to kill Allahdad. Since this key requirement under Section 34 was missing, the section could not be applied. The Privy Council acquitted Mahboob Shah of all charges.
Concluding Remark
The decision in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor clarified the important difference between similar intention and common intention. Just because two people have similar intentions does not mean they are acting together with a shared purpose. For Section 34 to apply, there must be a clear understanding and agreement to commit the crime together. This case continues to be a guiding judgment when courts deal with crimes involving multiple people and questions of joint responsibility.
