Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted three appellants of murder with common intention but upheld their convictions for attempted murder arising from a prolonged shooting at a crowd. The evidence did not reliably link their exhortations to the two deaths, although their participation in the continued dangerous firing supported Section 307/34 liability. Omission to put the precise exhortation evidence during Section 313 questioning caused no demonstrated prejudice on this record.
Issues
- Whether the appellants shared common intention for the two murders or only for the attempted murders.
- Whether omission of specific exhortation circumstances in Section 313 questioning vitiated conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, read with Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860Common intention had to extend to the crime actually committed. The evidence did not safely establish that link for the two murders but did for the prolonged shooting injuring the crowd. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 46)
- Section 300, Fourthly, and illustration (d), Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants’ continued exhortation of indiscriminate firing supported knowledge of an imminently dangerous act likely to cause death, sustaining attempted-murder liability. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Material incriminating circumstances should be put to the accused, but an omission does not automatically invalidate trial absent prejudice. The late-raised objection failed on these facts. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Held
- Common intention may develop on the spot but must be established from the whole proven circumstances and concern the crime actually committed. Similar intentions or mere presence cannot replace proof of the necessary shared intention. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- The victims’ relatives denied that the two deceased supported the rival faction, and witness accounts did not consistently establish targeted exhortation or its timing relative to their shooting. General exhortation against that faction’s supporters did not safely prove shared intention for these murders. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31)
- The appellants nevertheless remained with the gunman during prolonged indiscriminate firing, exhorting him and pointing to targets, while twenty-six persons were injured. Their knowledge of the act’s deadly danger and participation supported attempted murder with common intention, even though liability for the two completed murders was not proved. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- The precise exhortation evidence was not separately put during Section 313 examination. Nevertheless, the questions conveyed the FIR role, the gunman’s use of the weapon and the common-intention case; counsel had cross-examined the witnesses and no prejudice objection was raised below. With the appellants maintaining complete denial of presence, the Court found no prejudice vitiating conviction. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Result
All three appeals partly allowed: Section 302/34 convictions and sentences set aside, but Section 307/34 convictions and sentences affirmed. Bail bonds cancelled; surrender required for any remaining sentence, with no custody if records verified that it had already been served.