Summary
The Court restored a murder conviction with common-intention liability after the High Court acquitted an unarmed participant on speculative reasoning. Joint arrival, identification of the victim, exhortation, protective cover and joint escape established a preconcerted plan. Absence of a separate assault or weapon did not defeat that proved participation.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established common intention despite the respondent not firing the fatal shot.
- Whether the acquittal warranted interference under Article 136.
Held
- Common intention is inferred cumulatively from conduct before, during and after the occurrence. No rigid formula applies, and absence of an overt assault, exhortation or weapon cannot alone determine its absence. (¶ 10–13)
- Here the evidence established motive, joint arrival, movement towards the identified victim, exhortation and cover during the shooting, followed by joint escape. The High Court’s speculation that the respondent did not know of the revolver went beyond his own defence and ignored the proved sequence. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- An acquittal reversing conviction may be disturbed where the High Court seriously misappreciates evidence, applies incorrect principles and relies on speculation. Those defects required restoration of the trial conviction here. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court acquittal set aside and trial conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC restored. Respondent directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.