Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Asif Khan’s murder conviction with common intention although he restrained the deceased while the co-accused inflicted the fatal knife wound. Their departure after the initial quarrel, return with a weapon and coordinated attack established premeditation and shared intent. The case did not warrant reduction to culpable homicide based only on knowledge.
Issues
- Whether the attack warranted murder conviction rather than Section 304 Part II.
- Whether restraint of the deceased during the stabbing established liability through common intention.
Provisions considered
- Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860The deliberate return with a deadly knife and the injury proved sufficient to cause death supported murder, distinguishing unpremeditated sudden-fight cases. (¶ 12–17)
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Common intention requires concert, distinguishable from merely similar intentions; it may be inferred from conduct and circumstances and does not require every participant to inflict the fatal blow. (¶ 20–28)
Held
- The two accused left after the first quarrel and returned about ten minutes later armed with a knife. That interval and coordinated assault supported premeditation, and medical evidence established a fatal liver injury. The authorities relied on for Section 304 Part II were factually different. (¶ 12–17)
- Section 34 requires a shared plan or meeting of minds, which may form suddenly and be inferred from circumstances. Mere independent similarity of intention is insufficient; the individual acts may differ while furthering the same common intention. (¶ 20–27)
- Three eyewitnesses consistently described the appellant holding the deceased’s neck while the other accused stabbed him. The return together with the weapon and the manner of assault established the requisite common intention. (¶¶ 18–19, 28)
Result
Asif Khan’s appeals dismissed; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 upheld. The proceedings concerned him alone after the co-accused’s special leave petition had already been dismissed.