Summary
The Court upheld a murder conviction based on common intention where the appellant arrived armed with a stick and exhorted his companion, who immediately fired the fatal shot. Consistent eyewitness accounts established participation despite the witnesses’ relationship with the deceased. Their evidence accorded with the gunshot injuries, and absence of weapon recovery or ballistic testimony did not defeat the case on these facts. Common intention could form shortly before the act; an elaborate longstanding plan or a separate injurious blow by each participant was unnecessary.
Issues
- Whether related eyewitnesses and absence of weapon recovery or ballistic evidence undermined the prosecution.
- Whether the appellant’s presence and exhortation established common intention for murder.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The proven joint conduct and exhortation immediately preceding the fatal shooting established constructive liability for murder. (¶ 21-28)
Held
- Relationship to the deceased did not itself make the eyewitnesses interested or unreliable. Their presence was naturally explained and their accounts consistent on the incident, the appellant’s exhortation and the fatal shot. Failure to examine the deceased’s daughter was not fatal in that evidentiary setting. (¶ 14-16)
- Non-recovery of the firearm and absence of ballistic testimony did not displace credible direct evidence consistent with the medical findings. Expert examination was not an inflexible prerequisite in every firearm case; circumstances involving recovered firearms and cartridges could require different assessment. (¶ 17-20)
- Section 34 embodied constructive liability rather than a separate offence. It required common intention and concert, not merely independent similar intentions. The understanding could arise shortly before the crime, without an elaborate or longstanding plan. A separate overt injurious act by every participant was unnecessary when shared intention was proved. (¶ 21-26)
- The appellant accompanied the armed shooter while himself carrying a stick and exhorted him immediately before the fatal shot. His presence, role and words were consistently proved by three witnesses and established the requisite common intention on these facts. (¶ 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentence maintained.