Summary
The surviving appellant’s murder conviction was upheld with the aid of common intention. Differences in eyewitness accounts about who fired the fatal shot did not defeat liability where his armed presence and concerted participation were established. Evidence against an acquitted co-accused was materially different. The appeal of the other appellant abated on his death; the surviving appellant was required to surrender within six weeks.
Issues
- Whether conflicting accounts about the shooter undermined the surviving appellant’s conviction based on common intention.
- Whether acquittal of a co-accused required the same result for the appellant.
Held
- The early account naming Balaram as a shooter was corroborated by two eyewitnesses. His presence with a rifle was consistently established notwithstanding differences concerning individual shots. (¶ 10–12)
- The acquitted co-accused stood on different evidence: there was no cogent account identifying the injury attributed to his alleged shot. His acquittal did not undermine the evidence against the appellants. (¶ 11)
- Common intention requires a shared intention to commit the particular crime and commission of the criminal act in furtherance of it. The proved armed presence and concerted action supported liability even assuming the other appellant fired the fatal shot. (¶ 12)
- The surviving appellant’s murder conviction and life sentence were affirmed. The deceased appellant’s appeal abated; surrender within six weeks was directed for the surviving appellant, failing which he was to be taken into custody. (¶¶ 6, 13)
Result
Appeal dismissed as to Balaram; conviction under sections 302/34 IPC and life imprisonment affirmed. He must surrender within six weeks, failing which custody is directed. Rameshwar’s appeal dismissed as abated.