In which case, while fastening the liability on the accused, the Court stated that – “They also serve who only stand and wait”?

The judgment passed by the Privy Council in Mahboob Shah vs. Emperor case, became a landmark judgment as it differentiated between common intention and same intention. The judgment even in today's era is relevant and also of great importance. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor: Lord Sumner dismissed the appeal against the conviction and held that – “criminal acts means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be responsible, if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in criminal offence.” Nitya Sen v. State of West Bengal: It has therefore been proved beyond doubt that there was not only ample opportunity for a preconcert, but that the assailants, including the appellant, committed the murder of Chintamoni Ghosh in pursuance of a pre-concerted plan, in a cold-blooded manner. The High Court therefore rightly held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the murder as committed in furtherance of the common intention of the three accused who have been convicted and sentenced by both the courts below.