Absence of injuries on vital parts attributed to secondary accused negates shared intention for Section 302 murder.

The Appellant, Jitender @ Babu, along with co-accused Sunny @ Babe, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Biju Varghese

On May 19, 2015, eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-6) observed Sunny assaulting the deceased with a motorcycle helmet while the Appellant allegedly restrained the deceased by holding his neck from behind

The Post-Mortem Report (Ex.PW2/A) recorded 13 injuries to the head, face, and chest, but notably no injuries or marks of strangulation/compression on the neck

The Trial Court initially framed charges under Section 304 IPC but later altered them to Section 302 IPC at the end of the trial

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing a lack of common intention or medical evidence linking his specific act to the cause of death

Whether the act of restraining the deceased by the neck, in the absence of medical evidence of neck injury, is sufficient to establish a shared common intention for murder under Section 302/34 IPC

Whether the offence committed by the Appellant amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the degree of knowledge and intention

The Court applied Section 300 (Murder), Section 304 (Culpable Homicide), and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

It relied on *Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab*, which mandates that for murder, the prosecution must prove the intention to inflict the specific injury that is sufficient to cause death

It further cited *Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. State of Maharashtra*, holding that sudden fights without premeditation where weapons are not cruelly used fall under Section 304 IPC

and *Chellappa v. State*, emphasizing that Section 34 liability requires clear proof of a shared mental design and not just simultaneous presence

The Court observed that while the death was homicidal due to blunt force impact to the head and chest, the specific role attributed to the Appellant was one of "restraint" rather than "assault"

Crucially, the medical testimony of PW-24 highlighted that there were no injuries on the neck, contradicting the foundational allegation that the Appellant's grip was a lethal factor

The Court reasoned that because the incident occurred suddenly without prior planning, and the Appellant did not wield a weapon or exhort the killer to commit murder (exhortations were limited to co-accused Sunny), a shared "intention" to kill could not be inferred

However, the court found that the Appellant possessed the "knowledge" that his actions facilitated a violent assault likely to cause death, thereby satisfying the criteria for Section 304 Part I rather than Section 302 IPC

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a meeting of minds for murder, but proved the Appellant’s knowledge of the potential fatal outcome

Consequently, the Appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone (approx. 4 years and 7 months), the fine was set aside, and his immediate release was ordered