Absence of Premeditation and Common Intention Precludes Constructive Liability Under Section 34 for Murder

On the night of August 3-4, 2019, a scuffle broke out near Jackson Gate, Agartala, between Bodhisattwa Das (the deceased) and Sukanta Biswas (a Traffic Inspector) after the latter allegedly urinated in front of a medical store

The appellants, Sumit Chowdhury and Sumit Banik, intervened to support Biswas

During the altercation, a third party, Omar Sharif (convicted in a separate appeal), arrived on a scooter. The appellants informed Sharif that their friend was being assaulted

Sharif then stabbed the deceased multiple times with a knife, leading to the victim's death on August 16, 2019, due to septicemia

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment

The appellants challenged this conviction, arguing they had no common intention to kill

1. Whether the appellants shared a "common intention" with the main assailant to commit murder under Section 34 of the IPC

2. Whether the statements and confessions recorded by an Executive Magistrate are legally admissible under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Whether the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC can be sustained when the fatal injuries were caused solely by a third party’s independent act

The court applied Section 34 of the IPC, which requires a "prior meeting of minds" and "pre-meditation" for joint liability

It distinguished between a common intention to kill and a sudden altercation where one party independently uses a lethal weapon, as established in Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1998) and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)

The court applied Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., interpreting "Magistrate" to mean a Judicial Magistrate, thereby excluding Executive Magistrates as held in State of Assam v. Anupam Das (2007)

It also referenced Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the inadmissibility of confessions made in police custody

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove "pre-meditation" or a "pre-arranged plan" necessary to invoke Section 34 IPC for murder

The evidence of the eye-witness (PW-2) showed that the incident was a sudden scuffle over a trivial issue

When the appellants complained to Omar Sharif that their friend was being beaten, it did not constitute an instigation to kill, as they could not have known Sharif was carrying a knife or that he would use it fatally

The court noted the absence of blood on seized beer bottles, contradicting the FIR's claim that they were used as weapons

The court also invalidated the reliance on confessions recorded by an Executive Magistrate, noting such officers lack authority under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Since the appellants' roles were limited to "fist and blows" and the cause of death was specific sharp-weapon stabbing by a third party, the "common intention" for murder was not established

It held that Section 34 IPC could not be applied to hold the appellants liable for murder in the absence of a pre-arranged plan or knowledge of the lethal weapon

The court set aside the Judgment and Orders of Conviction dated 02.06.2023 and 03.06.2023. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately from their six-year incarceration