Summary
The High Court acquitted a father who accompanied his son to the victim’s sleeping place and exhorted the son to shoot, while sustaining the shooter’s conviction on the same eyewitness evidence. The Court found that speculative exaggeration could not displace the consistent, accepted testimony and proved shared intention. It restored the father’s murder conviction with common intention and life sentence, directing surrender within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether absence of a further overt act justified acquitting the accused who accompanied and exhorted the shooter despite proof of common intention.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The proved joint arrival, motive and exhortation supported murder liability with common intention despite the accused not firing the shot. (¶ 12-13)
Held
- The accused was named from the outset. Three consistent eyewitnesses described his joint arrival with the shooter and specific exhortation to kill. The High Court itself accepted those witnesses as trustworthy when sustaining the other accused’s conviction. (¶ 12)
- The established motive, joint midnight visit and exhortation followed by the shooting proved common intention on these facts. Acquittal merely because no further overt act was assigned rested on conjecture about exaggeration and contradicted the accepted evidence. (¶ 12.1-12.2)
- The acquittal was set aside and the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and life imprisonment restored. The respondent was directed to surrender within four weeks. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal allowed. Acquittal set aside; murder conviction under Section 302/34 and life sentence restored. Respondent directed to surrender within four weeks.